Books

Geertsema, J. Always Obedient: Essays on the Teachings of Dr. Klaas Schilder. P&R, 1995.

Klass Schilder (1890-1952) was a Dutch pastor and professor in the generation following Kuyper and Bavinck. He is notable for standing within the tradition developed by Kuyper and Bavinck while also dissenting from Kuyper at key points. He is also notable for his opposition to dialectical theology (Barthianism) and to the Nazi occupation of Holland. The book provides a brief biography of Schilder and includes essays on several aspects of his thought: Scripture, covenant, the church, culture, and heaven. Fundamentalists will appreciate Schilder’s resistance to Barthian approaches to Scripture and his resistance to ecumenical unity with Barthians and other unorthodox groups. At the same time he strongly held that Reformed Christians ought to be more united. Those from the free church tradition will disagree with the way he maps out this unity institutionally, but should appreciate his emphasis on both unity and purity. Baptists will also disagree on his thoughts regarding the covenant, since he includes children in the covenant. Yet we would appreciate his opposition to Kuyper’s views of presumptive regeneration and eternal justification. Regarding Christ and Culture, Schilder strongly believed in the importance of Christians participation in cultural pursuits. However, he saw dangers in Kuyper’s formulation of common grace. He placed greater emphasis on the antithesis, and he emphasized the needs for Christian cultural involvement to be truly Christian.

Oliphint, K. Scott. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013.

Covenantal apologetics is Oliphint’s name for Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Oliphint chooses this name because he finds presuppositionalism an inadequate term (there are multiple kinds of presuppositionalism and the existence of presuppositions is hardly news in a post-modern context) and because a key part of Oliphint’s apologetic is that the transcendent God relates to mankind covenantally.

The book unpacks ten tenets:

1. The faith that we are defending must begin with, and necessarily include, the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who, as God, condescends to create to redeem.
2. God’s covenantal revelation is authoritative by virtue of what it is, and any covenantal, Christian apologetic will necessarily stand on and utilize that authority in order to defend Christianity.
3. It is the truth of God’s revelation together with the work of the Holy Spirit, that brings about a covenantal change from one who is in Adam to one who is in Christ.
4. Man (male and female) as image of God is in covenant with the triune God for eternity.
5. All people know the true God, and that knowledge entails covenantal obligations.
6. Those who are and remain in Adam suppress the truth that they know. Those who are in Christ see that truth for what it is.
7. There is an absolute, covenantal antithesis between Christian theism and any other, opposing position. Thus, Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false.
8. Suppression of the truth, like the depravity of sin, is total but not absolute. Thus, every unbelieving position will necessarily have within it ideas, concepts, notions, and the like that it has taken and wrenched from their true Christian context.
9. The true, covenantal knowledge of God in man, together with God’s universal mercy allows for persuasion in apologetics.
10. Every fact and experience is what it is by virtue of the covenantal, all-controlling plan and purpose of God.

In the course of the book Oliphint emphasizes the goal apologetics is not winning an argument but is persuasion. One of the strengths of this approach is the close connection made between apologetics and evangelism.

A second strength of Covenantal Apologetics is importance Oliphint places on Romans 1. He repeatedly emphasizes that in our apologetic and evangelistic encounters we are speaking to people who inescapably know the truth of our testimony to God, despite their suppression of that truth.

A third strength is Oliphint’s attempt to move from theory to practice. He does this by including apologetic dialogues. The opposing lines are based, at least initially, on the published arguments of opponents to Christianity, both atheist and Muslim.

Articles

Weeks, Noel. "The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11." Themelios 4.1 (Sept. 1978): 12-19.

Weeks addresses such issues as the role of general revelation, the thought-world of the ANE and its effect on the opening chapters of Genesis, and the fact that literary structuring does not negate the historical accuracy of biblical accounts.

The article is insightful. A few examples:

"We are not the first Christians to be troubled by the teaching of Genesis. Simply because the Bible has a different view of origins to those put forth in human philosophy there is a period of conflict whenever the church comes under the influence of a human philosophical system. Thus any defender of neo-Platonism in Augustine’s day or of Aristotelianism in the late Middle Ages found himself in trouble with Genesis. It is a gross oversimplification to act as though we alone face a problem here. Nevertheless the problem for most Christians today is generated by a specific challenge, namely that of biological evolution and related theories." 14

" One must first reckon with the fact that certain ideas or stories may be shared by the Bible and surrounding cultures because they are both based on a historical event. For example it would be rather ridiculous to argue that God chose to convey certain theological truths in terms of the flood concepts already possessed by the Mesopotamians. Obviously both Bible and Sumerian traditions mention a flood because there was a flood." 14

"Was there ever a pure ‘three-storey universe’ idea in antiquity? For the pagan contemporaries of the Bible writers, cosmology was theology. The heavens expressed and were controlled by the various divinities. The sort of abstract spacial/mechanical interest involved in the idea of a three-storey universe is a product of the demythologization of Greek rationalism and Euclidian spacial concepts. One should not try to project a late idea back into biblical times in order to explain the Bible. In its rejection of polytheism biblical cosmology is of necessity radically different to its surroundings. It is not popular cosmology." 16

Weeks, Noel K. "The Ambiguity of Biblical Background," Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 219-36.

Weeks’s goal in this article is to evaluate the use of extra-biblical background material in the past to ascertain how it ought and ought not be used today. He begins by noting that many of the parallels between customs at Mari or Nuzi turned out to be false parallels. These parallels were built on the false assumption that these customs were not localized but consistent over the ANE. Weeks holds that conservatives were misguided to appeal to these alleged parallels to authenticate Scripture, especially since it required dating events later and claiming that the biblical authors "misunderstood the ‘real’ background" that scholars had uncovered.

Weeks then turns to Kline’s argument that the covenant structure of Deuteronomy demonstrates an early date for that book. Weeks holds to an early date for Deuteronomy based on the Bible’s own claims, but he notes that discoveries since the time of Kline undercut his argument. Features found in "second millennium treaties" were discovered in first millennium ones and vice versa. Weeks notes, "When one looks at the pattern of treaties, augmented by discoveries since the publications of Mendenhall and Kline, it becomes clear that the pattern those authors discerned was skewed by the fact that the then known second millennium treaties were predominately Hittite and the then known first millennium treaties were predominately Assyrian. What was seen as a difference between millennia looks much more like a difference between cultures" (222-23).

Weeks concludes from these examples that Christian scholars should be careful about the claims they make from extra-biblical background. They need to look at the assumptions that lie behind the claims of similarity and they need to assess the real significance of alleged similarities.

Weeks turns his attention from past failures in the deployment of extra-biblical background to present concerns. He notes that some use extra-biblical background to relativize that distinctiveness of Scripture. Others so embed the Bible in the ancient world that a kind of "historical determinism" limits what that biblical authors can be conceived as believing. The other effect of this view is that the "Bible is incomprehensible in the modern world" (227). Weeks notes that these views rest on an assumption of cultural uniformity that has already been disproven as well as a determinism that is undercut by historical change itself.

Weeks then turns to background to the creation narratives. He questions first whether many of these cultures even had creation myths. He comments, "The attempts to prove that, simply by changing what we understand by creation, we can classify the Ugaritic Baal stories as creation myths, illustrates the problem but not a convincing solution" (229). Secondly he notes that different scholars claim to have found the background to the OT creation story "in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, Egypt, or a complex mixture." The diversity of views here undercuts the credibility of the claims.

Weeks moves to the NT to evaluate the claim that the apostles used rabbinic or Qumranic exegesis in their interpretation of the Old Testament. Regarding the first he notes that recent research indicates that latter rabbinic exegesis was not necessarily the same as that practiced by the Pharisees of the first century. Regarding the claim that pesher exegesis from Qumran was utilized, Weeks notes that absence of Qumran in the Gospels tells against their pesher approach being a major influence on the apostles. Furthermore, he notes some significant differences between their view of the fulfllment of OT texts and the view inherent in the pesher method.

Finally Weeks turns to the claims of Bruce Winter that the background to the teaching about headcoverings in 1 Corinthians 11 was imperial concern about the way women dressed in the empire. Winter suggests that the "’angels’ of 1 Cor 11:10 are imperial inspectors, checking on the dress of women in church" (233). In addition to the argument of 1 Corinthians 11 being made from other premises, Weeks notes the existence of statues of "bare-headed imperial women." Winters suggests that these were to model appropriate hair styles for the populace. But Weeks notes, "Surely a requirement for covered female heads makes hair styles irrelevant" (233, n 54).

In conclusion Weeks notes two negative practical effects of uncritical dependence on extra-biblical background. First, an emphasis on the similarity of the Bible its ancient context can correlate with "a lack of distance of present Christian culture from the surrounding culture." Weeks asks, "might it be another manifestation of reaction to separationist Fundamentalism?" (235). Second, Weeks notes, "If the Bible speaks in the time-bound concepts and ideas of its time, which are not applicable to our time, and if the Bible is to play any role on the contemporary scene, then there must be a complex process of translation." He things the end result is that this approach will "undermine the effective authority of Scripture and the center of authority and certainty must shift to the church" (235).

Noel K. Weeks, "Cosmology in Historical Context," Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 2 (Fall 2006), 283-93

Weeks notes that there are two problematic assumptions made by those who attempt to correlate the cosmology of Genesis with ANE cosmologies. The first is that the data exists for such a correlation to be made. The second is that ANE cultures shared common cosmological beliefs. The second assumption is flawed since the data indicates a diversity of cosmological views in the ANE, even within a culture. This makes the first assumption shaky since there is little to no written material from Palestine that reveals what the cosmology of the peoples there was.

Weeks notes a third major obstacle: the ANE cosmologies are theological and any attempt to divide the theological from the cosmological is a modern distinction at odds with how the people of the time actually thought.

In the latter half of the article Weeks interacts with claims often made by those who attempt to correlate the biblical cosmology with those of the ANE. The first is the claim that the earth floated on a sea that also surrounded it. Weeks notes, however, that maps from Babylon show islands beyond the circular sea that was said to surround the earth. Furthermore the texts vary about whether the earth floats on an ocean, whether the ocean rests upon the land, or whether the earth rests directly on the underworld.

Weeks examines the Enuma Elish in particular, since it is often claimed as background to the Genesis story. He notes that this claim is at odds with a conservative dating of Genesis, is faulty because the Enuma Elish is at odds with older Mesopotamian cosmologies, and is unhelpful because it is impossible for the description of the cosmos in the Enuma Elish to be physical.

Finally, Weeks looks at claims that the raqia or firmament was seen by the Biblical authors as a solid dome. But this will not work since it contradicts the way the Bible speaks of the heavens in other passages. In any case, The Mesopotamian texts indicate a variety of views existed about the nature of the firmament. There is no need to impose a solid dome theory on the text of Scripture.

Gonzales, Jr, Robert. "The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?" Reformed Baptist Theological Review 4, no. 2 (July 2007): 5-32

Gonzalez argues that God did indeed make a creation covenant or a covenant with Adam. He rejects the idea that a covenant is only made in a fallen world in which oaths and ceremonies are needed to stabilize relationships. Gonzalez notes to the contrary that marriage is a covenant relationship that existed before the Fall (he is willing to concede that oaths may be a post-fall addition to covenants, but this does not seem to be his position). Gozalez argues that God does not cut a new covenant with Noah. Genesis 6:18 refers to God upholding a covenant. This implies an earlier creation covenant. In the remainder of the article Gonzalez traces the similarities between God’s promises in creation and his promises in other covenants. He seems to take the blessings of Genesis 1:26-28 as the promises of the Creation covenant and the warnings associated with the trees in the garden as the sanctions.

Rogland, Max. "Ad Litteram: Some Dutch Reformed Theologians on the Creation Days," Westminster Theological Journal 63, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 212-233.

Rogland’s article is a response to claims by Morton Smith and Joesph Pipa that late nineteenth and early twentieth century Dutch Reformed theologians agreed that the days of Genesis 1 were "literal" and "ordinary." Rogland is able to demonstrate that while all agreed that the days were "literal" (though in later years some preferred "historical"), not all agreed that they were "ordinary" twenty-four hour days. American Dutch Reformed theologians Geerhardus Vos and Louis Berkhof both clearly believed the creation days to be "ordinary" twenty-four hour days. Theologians from the Netherlands, Kuyper, Bavinck, Aalders, and Schilder, held that at least the first three days (Kuyper), or even all six days, were not or might not be ordinary twenty-four hour days. However, they also clearly rejected the day-age theory (Bavinck earlier accepted the day-age theory and later rejected it). So while the days may have been longer that twenty-four hours, they were not millennia in length. In addition these men, especially Schilder (in the statements quoted by the article) strongly opposed evolution and attempts to harmonize Genesis 1 with evolutionary theory. The reasoning for broadening the days beyond strict twenty-four hour periods for Kuyper, et al. was twofold. First, the lack of sun in days 1-3 could mean that the earth orbited the light source in a different number of hours than it presently orbits the sun. Second, the Fall affected the world in many ways, and it could have affected the number of hours the earth orbits the sun. Rogland wrote this article in the context of whether the PCA was going to hold a definitive statement on the days of creation. He argues against such a statement on the basis of the positions of these earlier theologians. It must be said, however, given the evidence he presented in his article that these men clearly rejected the day-age view. The analogical day view, while likely wishing to claim these theologians, seems to hold a substantially different view of the days. It seems that there is small difference between holding strictly to twenty-four hour days in the creation week and holding that the days might be somewhat shorter or longer (but not ages longer) and a great difference between those positions and day-age, analogical day, and framework positions. Rogland seems to be correct in nuancing Smith and Pipa, but their overall conclusion is more than his given the evidence of his article.

Trumper, Tim J. R. "Covenant Theology And Constructive Calvinism," Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 387-403.

This article is a review of Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology: John Murray’s and Meredith Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought. It seems that Jeon is more sympathetic toward Kline and Trumper is more sympathetic toward Murray (though he wants to downplay the debate overall). In any event the article is a helpful for gaining some sense in the differing covenantal views of Murray and Kline.

Niehuas, Jeffrey J. "Covenant: An Idea in the Mind of God," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 2009): 225-46.

In this article Niehaus interacts with Williamson, Hafemann, and others on some covenant themes recently under discussion: the existence of a creation covenant (N. affirms), whether a covenant ratifies and existing relationship (N. says a previous relationship exists but a covenant alters it), whether all the covenants are unified in a single covenant (N, denies), whether the New Covenant is new or a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant (N. affirms the newness of the New Covenant).

Overall an insightful article. I was most interested in his discussion of a Creation Covenant. I found this line of reasoning persuasive: "But it should be clear that Gen 1:1-2:3 (and 2:17) and other data (e.g. Ps 47:2, Mal 1:14) display the following facts about God: he is the Creator and Great King over all in heaven and earth; he has provided good things in abundance for those he created; he made the man and woman royalty (“subdue,” “rule over”) and gave them commands; he blessed them; and he pronounced a curse on them should they disobey his commands. These facts are the essence of covenant: a Great King in authority over lesser rulers, with a historical background of doing good to them, with commands and with blessings, but also a curse in case of disobedience" (233)

Bolt, John. "Herman Bavinck on Natural Law and Two Kingdoms: Some Further Reflections," The Bavinck Review 4 (2013): 64–93.

In the two kingdoms debate Bolt largely, though not entirely, sides with David VanDrunen’s analysis. Bolt concludes his article with the following propositions:

"1. Bavinck fully affirms the natural law/two kingdoms tradition that was an integral part of Reformed theology from John Calvin onward.

"2. Christian discipleship requires a robust sense that Christ is Lord and King and a robust sense of responsibility to bring every thought and action captive to Christ.

"3. The content of our obedience as disciples of Jesus Christ within the structures and relationships that are an integral part of our created human condition as God’s image bearers must be normed by the laws, ordinances, and wisdom of general revelation and natural law, as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament shed light on them and equip us to follow them. In other words, we are to be guided here by natural law rather than gospel.

"4. Acknowledging the need for Scriptural guidance to understand general revelation should not be used in such a way that it provides privileged knowledge for the followers of Christ that can trump public, natural knowledge. Our arguments in the public square include witness to the gospel and reasoned argument from common principles.

"5. Assessing the degree to which a people, a culture, a nation, a civilization has been "Christianized" should not be measured in distinctly Christian (or gospel) terms but by how natural and human markers such as the following are realized: protection of life, freedom and human dignity, equality of opportunity for betterment, equitable laws and justice applicable to all people, and possibility of peaceful voluntary association and cooperation among groups within a society" (92-93).

Personally, I find the insistence that life outside the church be governed by natural law and not by Scripture the least appealing and convincing aspect of VanDrunen’s two-kingdoms formulation. I can see how natural law and general revelation can result in pagans making civic laws consistent with God’s law. And I fully agree that the Mosaic law is not the covenant of the New Covenant era and is not to be applied to the nations of this era directly. But in my mind a Christianized society is one in which a vast majority of citizens have become citizens and in which they try to bring all of God’s Word to bear on all of life. Such societies are rare in history, won’t be realized until the millennium, and are not necessary for Christians to faithfully live in this world. A society that protects human dignity and provides equitable laws may be benefiting from God’s goodness, but it is not Christian unless its people are submissive to Christ and all His word.

Craig G. Bartholomew, "A Time for War, and a Time for Peace," in A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically: A Dialogue with Oliver O’Donovan, eds. Craig Bartholomew, et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 96-97.

Two insights I thought worth saving to think on:

On Proverbs 8:30: "If the translation of ‘āmôn as ‘craftsman’ or ‘artisan’ is correct [Murphy, WBC; Van Leeuwen, NIB], then wisdom is here ‘personified as the king’s architect-advisor, through whom the king puts all things in their  proper order and whose decrees of cosmic justice are the standard for human kings and rulers (v. 15)’ [Van Leeuwen, NIB, 94]" (92).

"In Hebrew, Schmid connects this [creation] order with ṣedeq (=righteousness). He notes that the ancient Near Eastern law codes enact ‘the establishment of the order of creation in its juristic aspect." (96-97).

Harmless, William, ed. Augustine in His Own Words. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. [pp. 122-55; Augustine the Preacher]

Harmless selects from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine and from his various sermons to present the reader with both Augustine’s theory about preaching as well as examples of his preaching.

Various articles from Allan D. Fitzgerald, ed. Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

A top-notch encyclopedia about all things Augustine.

Books

Morgan, Edmund S. Roger Williams: The Church and the State. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967.

This is a very helpful interpretation of Roger Williams’s thought. It is not a biographical study, though biographical details are included when relevant to Williams’s thought. In sum Williams seems to have had true insights that were contrary to the customary thought of the time, but he held to these insights with such rigor that he drove himself into other errors. For instance Williams was correct to believe that the church needed a pure membership that was separate from the mixed state church. But he drove this to such an extreme that he could no longer fellowship with the Separatists at Plymouth because the church did not reprimand members who listened to Puritan (Anglican) preaching while traveling in England. Also, Williams was convinced that if worship was to be kept pure, unbelievers must not participate in any part of worship. This meant that unbelievers should not be permitted to listen to preaching in church because preaching was part of worship (the gospel could be proclaimed to the lost outside church). It meant that families should not pray together if some of the children were unsaved because prayer was part of worship. Williams also rightly recognized that a pure church ideal leads to a baptist position, but he left the Baptists in Rhode Island because he also believed in the necessity of apostolic succession for baptism to be valid and he believed that the Antichrist had ended that succession.

Williams is perhaps best known for his thinking on religious liberty. Morgan helpfully points out that the difference between Williams and the Puritans on this matter has its root in their different understandings in the way the Old Testament relates to the New. The Puritans thought their colony was like Israel. It was in a covenant with God. God would bless them if their colony obeyed God’s laws; He would judge them if they disobeyed. They copied the laws of Moses when writing their own laws. They thought the responsibility of Old Testament kings to keep idolatry out of Israel was the responsibility of their government also. Williams disagreed. He said that Israel was a shadow of the church. The Old Testament laws and the examples of Old Testament rulers were pictures of Christ and the church. Modern day rulers should not take those teachings literally. Williams said that the government’s only purpose was to protect people’s bodies and goods from harm. Rulers did not need to be Christians to that. Furthermore, most rulers in the world were not Christians. Williams did not trust rulers to make right decisions about what religion should be practiced in their countries. He said that people should be free to worship according to their consciences. It did not matter if they were Puritans, Quakers, Muslims, or atheists. Again, Williams saw some important things that the Puritans missed (though both of them erred in their relation of the Testaments), and yet Williams also seems to be a first step toward American secularism. I see no biblical problem in allowing freedom of worship within moral bounds for other religions, keeping the church and state distinct, while also requiring state officials to recognize Christianity as the moral compass for the nations laws. Many states adopted this approach even after the Constitution went into effect.

Shales, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Harper, 2007.

Shales’s title plays off of two uses of the phrase "the forgotten man." The first use of the phrase came from a nineteenth century essay by William Graham Sumner. Sumner identified the forgotten man as the one that bears the burdens that progressives and social reformers lay on him in their efforts to help others. Roosevelt uses the phrase to describe those in need from the programs of the New Deal. It is an effective title because it keeps the question before the reader’s mind throughout the book as to who the forgotten man truly was.

Piper, John. & David Mathis, eds. Acting the Miracle: God’s Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification. Crossway, 2013.

The essays from this volume are drawn from sermons at a Desiring God conference. The conference seemed designed to address an antinomian tendency among some of the "young, restless, and reformed" whose conception of "grace-based," and "gospel-centered" leaves no room for Spirit-empowered personal striving toward Christlikeness. I found the essays by John Piper and Kevin DeYoung to be the most beneficial. Piper develops a theology of sanctification and DeYoung demonstrates that the Bible gives a multiplicity of incentives for sanctification.

Carwardine, Richard. Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power. New York: Knopf, 2006.

This is not a biography of Lincoln. Instead it looks at Lincoln as a politician. Carwardine examines his political viewpoint, objectives, and how these changed (or did not change) over time. He also looks at how Lincoln gained power through the party process and how he governed. I gained a greater appreciation for Lincoln’s skill as a political leader and as president. Carwardine also paid attention to Lincoln’s religious milieu and his own religious beliefs.

Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? P&R, 2013.

As a Puritan scholar and Presbyterian pastor Mark Jones is doubtless glad to see greater interest in Reformed theology. However, he is also concerned that many who identify themselves as grace-based and gospel-centered are actually more antinomian than historically Reformed. Jones provides a helpful history of antinomianism. He argues that the imitation of Christ and obedience to the moral law of God are appropriate guides to sanctification. He further argues that God rewards good works, and that good works are necessary for salvation, though not meritorious of it. Assurance of salvation involves not only reliance on the promises of the gospel but also a recognition of spiritual growth in obedience. In addition, Jones rejects the antinomian sentiment that our disobedience does not affect God’s love toward us because God only sees us in Christ and thus does not see our sin. Rather, the Puritans distinguished between an unchanging love of God for us based on our status in Christ and another aspect of his love that is pleased with or obedience and grieved and angered by our disobedience. This summary of positions, however, does not do justice to the exposition of the positions within the book. Well worth reading.

Articles

Miller, Perry. "Roger Williams: An Essay in Interpretation." In The Complete Writings of Roger Williams. Volume 7. 1963; Reprinted: Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007.

Perry Williams also helpfully treats the differences in the relation between the Testaments in Puritan and in Roger Williams’s thought:

"This secular interpretation of Williams is a misreading of his real thought. . . . It is his writings that reveal the true issue between Williams and the spokesmen for the New England theocracy; between him and Winthrop; between him and John Calvin. The issue was not at all the content of the four indictments. It was rather the broad, the undermining, the truly dangerous conviction from which he deduced these specific corollaries. The difference was an irreconcilable opposition between two methods of reading the Bible. ¶. . . Roger Williams was a ‘typologist.’ John Cotton and his colleagues were ‘federalists.’ Williams held that the historical Israel was a ‘type’ that had been absorbed into the timeless and a-historical ‘antitype’ of Jesus Christ. Cotton and his friends held that God had entered into a covenant with Abraham to nominate a chosen people, that Christ was the seal upon this covenant, which continued still to bind Him and His people together. They founded their social and historical endeavor upon the reality of this temporal and organic development from Palestine to Boston, out of which came a solid system of interpreting the growth, the step-by-step unfolding of Christianity. Without this demonstrable continuity human history would be meaningless; without it the Christian community would dissolve into chaos. ¶But Williams, by treating the Israel of Moses, Abraham and Isaac as a ‘figurative’ prophecy of a purely spiritual and invisible church (which by its nature would be utterly alienated from any physically embodied political order) was putting a chasm between the Old Testament and the New. He was cutting off the present from its origins. ¶Consequently, when he wrote that he would prove [Vol. III, 316] ‘that the state of Israel as a Nationall State made up of Spirituall and Civill power, so farre as it attended upon the spirituall, was merely figurative and typing out the Christian Churches consisting of both Jewes and Gentiles, enjoying the true power of the Lord Jesus, establishing, reforming, correcting, defending in all cases concerning his Kingdome and Government, Williams was hacking savagely at the root of every ecclesiastical organization through which Western civilization had striven to confine the anarchical impulses of humanity. If he was correct then all coherence was gone, not only theological but social; there could then be nothing but make-shift and fallible expedients, such as a ‘social compact’ too tenuous to claim any sanctions which a rebel need respect If he was correct, the colonization of New England was a gigantic and senseless blunder" (10-11).

"By this form of argument [Williams’s typological argument] David and Solomon are not to be condemned for executing Jewish heretics; in fact the justice or injustice of their administrative actions is irrelevant, except in a ‘figurative’ sense. They ruled over both the civil and spiritual kingdom. But no Christian magistrate since the Resurrection can play the dual role. No ruler, Spanish, English, or Bostonian, has any right to punish one who dissents form his idea of true Christianity, even if the offender appear irretrievably anti-Christian. All typical regimes have been abolished in the consuming light of the disclosure of their hidden secret; they have given way to the antitype, which is the true church, radically ‘separated’ form pretended religious institutions, such as the parish churches of England. . . .By treating the Old Testament as figurative he did not explicitly deny that it was also valid as a chronicle of facts. But in effect he demoted that aspect of the sacred books to virtual insignificance. The true thread on which they are strung was a sort of literary, a rhetorical, schematisation. Churches which in Christian times claim the right to act upon the precedents of Israel are confusing categories hopelessly. . . . We have only to contrast Williams’ approach with that of orthodox New England, with the conception of a legitimacy based upon the continuous covenant, to perceive why the orthodox had to see in Williams their most dangerous foe. He declared at the end of the chapter cited above, and elsewhere, a thousand times, that they who follow Moses’ church constitution, ‘which the New English by such a practice implicitly doe, must cease to pretend to the Lord Jesus Christ and his institutions.’ . . . If they saw him as a firebrand, it was not because he proclaimed the doctrine of liberty for all consciences, but because he set up a conception of cause and effect, within the framework of time, which made every Protestant assertion of the civil authority in matters of religion a blasphemy against their own Savior" (18-19).

Foulkes, Francis. "The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament." In The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Foulkes sees a twofold basis for typology. First it is grounded in the character of God, who acts consistently in history such that a pattern may be seen in his acts of judgment and in his acts of mercy. Second, typology is grounded in the progressive nature of God’s action, which means that God’s acts in the Old Testament are incomplete and find their climax in his acts in the New. Foulkes distinguishes between typology, which is grounded in history and tied to the context of passages and allegory which is word-based, ahistorical, and non-contextual.

Hesselgrave, David J. "Conversing with Gen-Xers and Millennials Concerning Law and Grace, Legalism and Liberty (An Open Letter to John and Joyce)."

Hesselgrave begins with definitions and settles on three variants of legalism (two bad and one good): "salvation by works legalism," "excessive conformance legalism," "reactive legalism/nomism" (the later indicating obedience to God’s law from a grateful heart of love). Hesselgrave then provides a brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism in which he stresses the need to appreciate the strengths of Fundamentalism. He denies that the first type of legalism can be pinned on Fundamentalism. Whether the second or third (negative or positive) apply to Fundamentalists varies on a case by case basis. While seeming to agree with the evangelical assessment that Fundamentalists were too separatist, Hesselgrave seems to indicate that Evangelicals made the opposite error in their relation to the world. Hesselgrave concludes with nine guidelines: (1) "Salvation by works legalism" is always wrong, (2) "Christ himself must be the judge of" whether someone is guilty of "excessive conformance legalism," (3) "reactive legalism/nomism" is "highly pleasing to God," (4) NT faith "involves "belief(s), believing and behavior," (5) grace should provoke a response of gratitude that affects behavior, (6) a born-again Christian cannot be lawless, (7) "Christian liberty . . . means ‘set free’ not ‘self-serve,’ (8) the Great Commission invokes discipline people to observe all his commands, (9) the "essence" of the Kingdom of God is the rule of Christ. Regarding the particular issue of an institutional "code of conduct," Hesselgrave notes, "When it comes to surrendering personal liberty to meet the need for credibility on the part of corporate entities such as a Christian church, school, or mission agency, the weight of biblical principles and precedents clearly seems to be on the side of that Christian entity—provided that its requirements and regulations are clearly announced and biblically based. It is Western individualism rather than Christian conviction that recoils at the idea of serving by submitting. The Scriptures stress the testimony of the Church as a Body, not just or primarily the freedom of its members."

Kevan, Ernest F. "Legalism: An Essay on the Views of Dr. Emil Brunner," Vox Evangelica 2 (1963): 50-57.

Rebuts Brunner’s existentialist-based contention that any obedience to a pre-stated law is legalism.

Articles on "Body," "Anthropology," and "Image Doctrine" in Allan D. Fitzgerald, Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Hamilton, Jim. "Does the Bible Condone Slavery and Sexism?" In In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, ed. Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder. Nashville: Broadban and Holman, 2013.

Hamilton answers the titular question in the essay’s second sentence: "Of course not!" Regarding sexism, Hamilton notes that much depends on proper definitions. The Bible does teach an "ontological equality" between male and female while also demonstrating "a righteous hierarchy in edenic gender relations." Hamilton understands sexism as both "feminism, the female desire to control, and Chauvinism, harsh male abuse of females." Hamilton argues that both slavery and sexism result from sin. In answering the charge that the New Testament authors condone slavery because they command slaves to obey their masters, noting "The authors of the New Testament are not out to revolutionize the existing social order but to make disciples of Jesus. . . . As day will come when social justice will be achieved, when Jesus will establish his kingdom, but the authors of the New Testament expect tribulation and affliction, the messianic woes, until that day comes." This is a mostly correct answer. However, it would have been stronger if Hamilton had acknowledged that when Christianity spreads and disciples of Jesus have political power, they ought to rule righteously. This would include social reforms such as ending slave trade and slavery. Justice will only fully arrive when Christ returns, but he will judge kings for not ruling justly in the meantime.

Books

Witvliet, John D. The Biblical Psalms in Christian Worship: A Brief Introduction and Guide to Resources. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

The title describes the book. It introduces the Psalms in the context of Christian worship. It then provides guidance for effective ways to use the Psalms in worship services. The book has two major weaknesses: it is undiscerning both with regard to styles of music and to ecumenism.

Wilson, N D. 100 Cupboards. Random House, 2007.

Wilson. N. D. Dandelion Fire. Random House, 2009.

Wilson, N.D. The Chestnut King. Random House, 2010.

This is probably the only series of Random House children’s books which promotes the Federal Vision’s thesis of the objectivity of the covenant. More positively, this is an engaging series written by someone who obviously enjoyed the Chronicles of Narnia, drew on that enjoyment (traveling through other worlds through cupboards), but did not slavishly imitate. The books are full of fun allusions to other books (the Bible, the Chronicles, the Wizard of Oz, etc.). These books are definitely darker, however, than Lewis’s.

Speare, Elizabeth George. The Bronze Bow. Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

I recalled enjoying this in high school. However, this time around I was struck with the presumption of making Jesus a character, giving him words other than his own, and, in the end, giving him a message that is different from that in the Gospels.

Articles

Manetsch, Scott M. "Problems with the Patriarchs: John Calvin’s Interpretation of Difficult Passages in Genesis," Westminster Theological Journal 67, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 1-21

Problem passages in the Old Testament in particular—passages that conflicted with common philosophical understandings or that portrayed the patriarchs acting sinfully—propelled patristic commentators toward allegorical interpretations of Scripture. Calvin firmly rejected the allegorical approach, and this article looks at how Calvin interpreted some of these same kinds of passages. The article shows a commitment to literal interpretation as opposed to allegorical interpretation, a willingness to see the text as accommodated to the audience rather than scientifically precise (but nonetheless the words of God and without error), and a willingness to critique the sinfulness of the patriarchs (though with perhaps still too much of a tendency to hold them up as ethical models). Calvin also demonstrated a willingness to acknowledge mystery and human finitude.

Henry, Carl F. B. God, Revelation and Authority. Waco: Word, 1979. [Thesis 9: The Mediating Logos, pp. 164-247].

Henry argues against dialectical theologians that revelation cannot be reduced to non-propositional, personal encounters. When Henry insists that Biblical revelation can be reduced to propositions, he is not ignoring biblical genres or saying propositions exhaust the biblical revelation. He is instead insisting that revelation is logically coherent and not relative to the person.