The Blog of Brian Collins
To trust in works, which one ought to do in fear, is equivalent to giving oneself the honor and taking it from God, to whom fear is due in connection with every work. But this is completely wrong, namely to please oneself, to enjoy oneself in one’s works, and to adore oneself as an idol.
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 31 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 46.
First three of the 95 Theses:
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.
He defines preaching thus: “Authentic proclamation is simply the declaration of the original Christian message of redemption and its immediate relevance to man and society. The hermeneutical problem of proceeding from the biblical words and sentences to their exposition in contemporary life must proceed in all confidence that in the scriptural revelation God has already proceeded once-for-all from his enduring truth to appropriate and proper words.” Throughout his distinguished career as a writer, Carl Henry sought, sometimes desperately, to reawaken pastors and church leaders to their responsibility to bring biblical exegesis to bear on contemporary problems and social ills. For him, kerygmatic preaching necessarily includes application to the crises of the hour. The gospel does not address individuals only— although it always must address them— but also communities, cities, nations, governments, and the principalities and powers of the age.
Gregory Alan Thornbury, Recovering Classic Evangelicalism: Applying the Wisdom and Vision of Carl F. H. Henry
Recently there have been a number of definitions of theology that emphasize the importance of practice.
Michael Horton writes:
By ‘redemptive-historical,’ then, is meant the organic unfolding of the divine plan in its execution through word (announcement), act (accomplishment), and word (interpretation). Revelation is therefore the servant of redemption, circumventing any conception of revelation as mere enlightenment, gnosis, information, or full presence.
Michael Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama
Kevin Vanhoozer writes:
Christian theology is the attempt to know God in order to give God his due (love, obedience, glory).
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, in The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision
This is not a new conception. William Perkins famously defined theology as:
The science of living blessedly forever.
But if it is not enough for theology to be about propositions because it must also be about transformation, it is also true that it is not enough for theology to be about transformation. It must also be rooted in the truth that God revealed about himself, thruth which is to be worshipfully believed. As Charles Hodge noted:
To make the end of preaching the inculcation of virtue, to render men honest, sober benevolent and faithful, is part and parcel of that wisdom of the world that is foolishness with God. It is attempting to raise fruit without trees.
Charles Hodge, 2 Corintihians, 88.
Theology I take to be systematic reflection on special revelation, ranging from biblical theology to the creeds and confessions to highly theoretical systematic theology. It is instructive to note that Calvin wrote his Institutes to enable Christians to read the Bible better, whereas we tend to think of the move from the Bible to systematic theology. The move needs, of course, to go both ways.
Craig G. Bartholomew, “Philosophy and Old Testament Interpretation: A Neglected Influence,” Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew and David J. H. Beldman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 66.
According to its etymology, Theology is the science concerning God. Other definitions either are misleading, or, when closely examined, are found to lead to the same result. . . . From this definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation. In scientifically dealing with impersonal objects we ourselves take the first step; they are passive, we are active; we handle them, examine them, experiment with them. But in regard to a spiritual, personal being this is different. Only in so far as such a being chooses to open up itself can we come to know it. All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man. The principle involved has been strikingly formulated by Paul: ‘For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God’ [1 Cor. 2.11].”
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 3.
Although Holy Scripture contains a perfect doctrine, to which one can add nothing, since in it our Lord has meant to display the infinite treasures of his wisdom, yet a person who has not much practice in it has good reason for some guidance and direction, to know what he ought to look for in it, in order not to wander hither and thither, but to hold to a sure path, that he may always be pressing toward the end to which the Holy Spirit calls him.
John Calvin, “Subject Matter of the Present Work: From the French Edition of 1560,” in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 6.
Rogers, Mark. “A Dangerous Idea? Martin Luther, E. Y. Mullins, and the Priesthood of All Believers,” Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 119-134.
The title of this article is a play off the title of Alistair McGrath’s book, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution. McGrath argues that Luther’s teaching of the priesthood of the believer “had a ‘democratizing agenda'” that fostered democracy among Protestants. Rogers notes that “McGrath’s argument draws entirely on Luther’s pre-1522 writings” and that a fuller view of Luther’s view of the priesthood of all believers requires attention to his later writings as well.
In the first part of the article Rogers looks at Luther’s writings about the priesthood of the believer. He notes that Luther always held to this doctrine, “but after 1524, as he began to see the danger of uneducated and spiritually immature Christians making up their own theology, he emphasized accountability among official teachers, both to the orthodox fathers of the church and to spiritually nature lay people.” Also interesting in this section of the article was Rogers observation that Luther saw the priesthood of the believer as a communal ministry to one another rather than in an entirely individualized sense.
In the latter part of the article Rogers compares Luther’s teaching with that of E. Y. Mullins, an early twentieth-century theologian whose view of the priesthood of the believer is probably the most widely held today. Rogers notes that with Luther Mullins rejected the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church, maintained that the “Christian could have direct access to God without any human mediator,” and a affirmed a role for the Christian ministry. Rogers points out three differences as well, “Mullins emphasized competent individualism whereas Luther focused on the interdependent priesthood of all Christians,” Mullins held to “the right private judgment” where Luther did not, and they differed in their view of church government.
Roger’s conclusion: “The Enlightenment, American democracy, modern subjectivism: these factors, rather than Luther’s doctrine of the universal priesthood, moved much of American evangelical theology in a radically democratic, egalitarian, and individualistic direction. The result is that the priesthood of all believers, a doctrine that should build Christ-centered, Bible-saturated, interdependent community in the church, has, in many pockets of evangelicalism, morphed into a teaching that encourages radical individualism and undermines the significance of the church’s life together. Luther’s doctrine was not perfect. Few evangelicals will want to return to a reliance on a state church system or limitations on religious liberty. But a proper understanding of Luther’s teaching and this doctrine’s development in history could help churches recover a more biblical, Christ-centered view of the priesthood of all believers, and thereby a more biblical community life within the church.”
Because I’m interested in philosophies of Bible translation, I pay close attention to translator’s notes for other books. Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop have produced a highly recommended translation of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. I think their comments on translation contain wisdom for translators of Scripture.
Our intent has been to make our translation of Tocqueville’s text as literal and consistent as we can, while still readable. By ‘readable’ we mean what can easily be read now, not what we might normally say. Of the two extremes in translating, staying as close as possible to the original and bringing it as close as possible to us, we are closer to the former. A book as great as Tocqueville’s should inspire a certain reverence in translators, not only because it is so intelligent or because its style is so perfect but also because the intelligence and the style go together and need as much as possible to be conveyed together in English. Precisely to bring Tocqueville to us requires an effort, both in translating and in reading, to get close to him, and to become familiar with his terms, his rhetorical flights, his favorite expressions.
Recognizing that translation is always imperfect, we have sought all the more to be modest, cautious, and faithful. Every translator must make many choices, but in making ours we have been guided by the principle, admittedly an ideal, that our business is to convey Tocqueville’s thought as he held it rather than to restate it in comparable terms of today. By refraining as much as possible from interpretation, we try to make it possible for readers to do their own thinking and figure out for themselves what Tocqueville means. As translators we respect the diversity of interpretation best when we do not offer one ourselves. Tocqueville wrote the following reproach to Henry Reeve, his friend and author of the first English translation of Democracy in America: ‘Without wishing to do so and by following the instinct of your opinions, you have quite vividly colored what was contrary to Democracy and almost erased what could do harm to Aristocracy.’ We are not likely to receive such an authoritative message, but we hope very much that we do not deserve one. . . . We do provide notes meant to be helpful, identifying events and allusions no longer familiar in our day. We also specify Tocqueville’s references to other places in his own text. . . . We have kept Tocqueville’s long sentences and short paragraphs.
Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, “A Note on Translation,” in Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 2000), xci-xciii.
True worship involves reverential human acts of submission and homage before the divine Sovereign in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accord with his will.
Daniel I. Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship
Gathered worship is offering up to God the united, spiritual responses of which he alone is worthy.
Mark Minnick, 7 September 2014
