by Brian
My pastor recently gave a talk on Fundamentalism which I think is very helpful.
I also appreciated his comments in the FBFI panel discussion on conservative evangelicalism. (I recognized the voices of Dr. Shumate and Dr. Bauder, and I found their comments helpful as well.)
His sermon at the FBFI is also well worth listening to.
by Brian
No creature has a force more wondrous or glorious than that of the sun. For besides lighting the whole earth with its brightness, how great a thing is it that by its heat it nourishes and quickens all living things! That with its rays it breathes fruitfulness into the earth! That it warms the seeds in the bosom of the earth, draws them forth with budding greenness, increases and strengthens them, nourishes them anew, until they rise up into stalks! That it feeds the plant with continual warmth, until it grows into a flower, and from flower into fruit! That then, also, with baking heat it brings the fruit to maturity! That in like manner trees and vines warmed by the sun first put forth buds and leaves, then put forth a flower, and from the flower produce fruit! Yet the Lord, to claim the whole credit for all these things, willed that, before he created the sun, light should come to be and earth be filled with all manner of herbs and fruits [Gen. 1:3, 11, 14]. Therefore a godly man will not make the sun either the principal or necessary cause of these things which existed before the creation of the sun, but merely the instrument that God uses because he so wills; for with no more difficulty he might abandon it, and act through himself. Then we read that at Joshua’s prayers the sun stood still in one degree for two days [Josh. 10:13], and that its shadow went back ten degrees for the sake of King Hezekiah [2 Kings 20:11 or Isa. 38:8], God has witnessed by those few miracles that the sun does not daily rise and set by a blind instinct of nature but that he himself, to renew our remembrance of his fatherly favor toward us governs our course.
Calvin, Institutes, 1.16.2
by Brian
Suppose we grant that the beginning of motion is with God, but that all things, either of themselves or by chance, are borne wither inclination and nature impels. Then the alternation of days and nights, of winter and summer, will be God’s work, inasmuch as he, assigning to each one his part, has set before them a certain law; that is, if with even tenor they uninterruptedly maintain the same way, days following after nights, months after months, and years after years. But that sometimes immoderate heat joined with dryness burns whatever crops there are, that at other times unseasonable rains damage the grain, that sudden calamity strikes from hail and storms—this will not be God’s work, unless perhaps because clouds or fair weather, cold or heat, take their origin from the conjunction of the stars and other natural causes. Yet in this way no place is left for God’s fatherly favor, nor for his judgments. If they say that God is beneficent enough to mankind because he sheds upon heaven and earth an ordinary power, by which they are supplied with food, this is too weak and profane a fiction. As if the fruitfulness of one year were not a singular blessing of God, and scarcity and famine were not his curse and vengeance! But because it would take too long to collect all the reasons, let the authority of God himself suffice. In the Law and in the Prophets he often declares that as often as he waters the earth with dews and rain [Lev. 26:3-4; Deut. 11:13-14; 28:12] he testifies to his favor; but when the heaven is hardened like iron at his command [Lev. 26:19], the grainfields consumed by blight and other harmful things [Deut. 28:22], as often as the fields are struck with hail and storms [cf. Isa. 28:2; Hag. 2:17, etc.], these are a sign of his certain and special vengeance. If we accept these things, it is certain that not one drop of rain falls without God’s sure command.
Calvin, Institutes, 1.16.5
by Brian
Alan Jacobs wrote an excellent critique of Philip Jenkins’ work, The Lost History of Christianity. (Jacobs actually critiques a Boston Globe essay by Jenkins, but the Globe essay was “a kind of preview” to Jenkins’ new book.)
Here’s an excerpt:
And if I do give up on the uniqueness of Jesus, what do I retain? I think we get a clue in this passage from Jenkins:
By the twelfth century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For two thousand years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian Cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world.
But these lessons are not comparable at all; they are quite dramatically at odds with each other, which may help to explain why attempts to reconcile them—if indeed that was really what was going on—have not succeeded. Christianity, being anything but Gnostic, does not believe that the material world is evil, but rather good: the glorious creation of a personal God. Christianity does not teach the innocence or purity of the soul, but rather the corruption of the will and the resulting involvement of the body in sin: As the Body says in a poem by Andrew Marvell, What but a Soul could have the wit / To build me up for Sin so fit? Christianity does not believe in nonattachment, but rather teaches precisely the opposite, that we should weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. The Buddha says, “He who has no love has no woe”; St. John says, “He who does not love abides in death.”
The whole article is well worth reading.
by Brian
Men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see [God]. Indeed, his essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception. But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance.
Calvin, Institutes, 1.5.1
by Brian
Calvin also warned against false miracles:
When we hear that [miracles] were appointed only to seal the truth, shall we employ them to confirm falsehoods? In the first place, it is right to investigate and examine that doctrine which, as the Evangelist says, is superior to miracles. Then, if it is approved, it may rightly be confirmed from miracles. Yet, if one does not tend to seek men’s glory but God’s [John 7:18; 8:50], this is a mark of true doctrine, as Christ says. Since Christ affirms this test of doctrine, miracles are wrongly valued that are applied to any other purpose than to glorify the name of the one God [Deut. 13:2 ff.].
John Calvin, “Prefatory Address to King Francis,” in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 17.
by Brian
In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly. For we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought serve to confirm. But, compared with us, they have a strange power: even to this day they can confirm their faith by continual miracles!
. . . . . . . . . .
Perhaps this false hue could have been more dazzling if Scripture had not warned us concerning the legitimate purpose and use of miracles. For Mark teaches that those signs which attended the apostles’ preaching were set forth to confirm it [Mark 16:20]. In like manner, Luke relates that our ‘Lord . . . bore witness to the word of his grace,’ when these signs and wonders were done by the apostles’ hands [Acts 14:3 p.]. Very much like this is that word of the apostle: that the salvation proclaimed by the gospel has been confirmed in the fact that ‘the Lord has attested it by signs and wonders and various mighty works [Heb. 2:4 p.; cf. Rom 15:18-19]
John Calvin, “Prefatory Address to King Francis,” in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 16.
It seems from what Calvin says here that he believed that miracles were given during the giving of revelation as a sign of its authenticity. It also seems that he believed there to be no more need for signs after the revelation had been first given.
by Brian
Michael Ruse writes in the November/December Books and Culture:
Thanks to scholars like Mark Noll (in America’s God), we now know how deeply the racism of 19th-century America was connected with and supported by biblical literalism—especially the ways in which the Bible was used to justify slavery.
Michael Ruse, “In the Land of Nod,” Books and Culture (Nov/Dec 2008): 39.
Does the evidence presented by Noll actually indicate that Biblical literalism lies at the root of Christian justifications for antebellum slavery?
“Literal” is a tricky word. Does it mean non-allegorical interpretation? Does it mean non-metaphorical? Noll seems to mean neither in America’s God. His use of “literal” denotes a superficial, surface reading of Scripture that fails to probe the Scriptures in a theological or synthetic manner. Noll makes a causal link between common sense realism and this approach to Scripture (America’s God, 379-385). It seems the claim that biblical literalism was used to justify slavery must be qualified by a careful definition of “literalism.” Without this definitional limitation, the claim that “biblical literalism” supported racism and slavery is in danger of slandering those who currently hold to what may be called “biblical literalism.”
What does Ruse mean by “biblical literalism”? He says, “The Sermon on the Mount hardly justifies slavery, so it is not the case that one has to reject the Bible to fight against the vile practice, but many passages of the Bible taken literally seem to support it” (p. 39f.) Does he mean “taken superficially and without theological intertextual considerations”? This would cohere with Noll’s usage, but it is not consistent with typical usage. Ruse could mean “that sense of interpretation (of a text) which is obtained by taking its words in their natural customary meaning, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar” (OED, 3.a).
Though Ruse appeals to Noll, it seems more likely that he means by “literal” not the non-standard meaning used by Noll but the more common meaning found in the OED. The fact that the article deals with the Creation/Evolution debate strengthens this supposition.
If this is the case, Ruse’s claim that biblical literalism is the culprit for 19th century racism and slavery fails. In The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the book-length treatment of the material Ruse refers to in America’s God, Noll indicates that racism was something read into (not out of) the biblical texts (cf. p. 52, 54).
The more successful biblical arguments against antebellum slavery did not depart from a biblical literalism (as defined by the OED above). Noll notes this was especially true among African Americans who had a view of Scripture that was much higher than many white abolitionists (p. 64).
It is true that these biblical literalists did not argue against slavery per se. They noted instead the many ways in which biblical slavery differed from that practiced in the antebellum South. In other words they recognized a difference between a non-race-based slavery of no more than six years after which the former slaves were provided for liberally upon release (Ex. 21:2; Deut 15:12-18) and a race-based slavery founded on man-theft in which the slaves and their families could be held in perpetuity.
The difficulty was not that “many passages of the Bible taken literally seem to support [slavery]” (p. 40). The problem was a lack of careful attention to the specifics of the text.
by Brian
The book of Revelation opens by recognizing Jesus Christ as prophet. He is the one who declared this message from the Father to John (Rev. 1:1; this takes Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a subjective genitive; see Osborne, 52).
The sacrificial imagery of Revelation is apparent. Jesus is “a Lamb, standing as thought it had been slain” (Rev. 5:6). Throughout the book he is referred to as a Lamb. But he is a royal Lamb (he is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David,” Rev. 5:5).
God’s throne is another major theme of Revelation. θρόνος occurs 47 times in Revelation [This figure includes three times where the plural “thrones” is used of the elders thrones (Rev. 4:4; 11:16; 20:4) and twice where the reference is to the throne of Satan (Rev. 2:13; 13:2)] and is found in all but five of the book’s chapters. This pervasive motif highlights the theme of kingship.
Based on the reference to Jesus sitting “with my Father on his throne” after his resurrection (Rev. 3:21), some dispensationalists wish to distinguish the Father’s throne (on which Jesus currently sits) and David’s throne (on which he will sit in the future) (Thomas, 325f.). Bock responds to this line of argumentation by noting the Old Testament in places equates Yahweh’s throne and the Davidic throne (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23) because Yahweh is the Father to the Davidic king who is his son (1 Chron. 28:6). In addition to this, Revelation in its earliest chapters describes Jesus acting with the prerogatives of the Davidic king (Rev. 1:5; 2:18; 2:26-27; 3:12). Most significantly, Revelation 5:5 links his Davidic claims to his conquering, which is precisely Jesus’ claim in Revelation 3:21: “I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Bock, 111).
Jesus is introduced in the opening greeting as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5). The book climaxes with the declaration: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15). This is the goal of the entire history of the world.
John recorded the fulfillment of this declaration terms that highlight all three of the Messianic offices. The King will ride down from heaven with his robe dipped in his sacrificial blood (Rev. 19:13) to defeat his enemies with the Word of his mouth (Rev. 19:15). “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16). Revelation 20 records the thousand year reign that is the precursor of Jesus’ eternal reign. At the end of that reign Jesus will exercise his kingly judgment over mankind.
Following the judgment, heaven and earth will be remade and the New Jerusalem—the new City of David—will descend from heaven. There is no temple there, “for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). There is a throne in the middle of the city (Rev. 22:3), and under the Lamb mankind will exercise the dominion intended for them “forever and ever” (Rev. 21:5).
Source:
Bock, Darrell L. “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992.
by Brian
According to Troeltsch, the unity that used to exist between religion (Christianity) and science has been definitely broken up since the rise of eighteenth-century rationalism. This breakup was caused by the change that occurred both in the view of science and in that of religion. Science laid aside all apriorism, became positive, and banished metaphysics. Today it exists solely as mathematical-mechanical, natural science as the critical-comparative study of history. In both respects it is opposed to the old view of religion and theology. And so the latter gradually changed in the sense that theologians no longer want anything to do with an external authority, as much as possible reduce or abandon the supernatural elements—like prophecy, miracle, and inspiration—that occur in authority-based religion, fully accept the historical criticism of Scripture, and regard dogmas purely as expressions of personal faith. Accordingly, there no longer exists a method by which Christianity could still be upheld as absolute religion. . . . Theology, therefore, has no alternative but to radically break with every dogmatic method and apply with honesty and consistency the history-of-religions method.
. . . . . . . . . .
[But] one cannot, in a historic an psychological sense, understand the religious life, thought, and feelings of others if one is not personally religious, has no idea of religion, and cannot evaluate religious phenomena by a specific criterion. Total ‘presuppositionlessness’ (Voraussetzungslosigkeit) renders study and research impossible. But if nevertheless presuppositionlessness is one’s aim and one takes a positivistic position with respect to religion, the inevitable result is a ‘theology of “mood” in place of a concepts, a system of paradoxes in place of sober truth, the ‘art’ of being enthused about everything in place of the conviction which looks for a fixed standard of things.’ In this area the purely empirical method results in surrender to the relativism of the historical process or event and the loss of one’s ability to judge the truth-content of a religion. . . .
It must also be said that such consistent relativism, which is synonymous with total indifferentism, is certainly not the intent of the advocates of the history-of-religions and psychological method. It is precisely their aim, by the use of this method to arrive at a dogmatics based not on abstract ideas but on facts. But it is not hard to demonstrate that the path chosen does not and cannot lead to this goal.
Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:71, 73.
