The Blog of Brian Collins
Grace also holds the Beatitudes together. The first three beatitudes describe a disciple’s knowledge of his spiritual need. The fourth states God’s promise to meet that need. The fifth through seventh describe the results of the fourth beatitude.
Daniel M. Doriani, Matthew 1-13
Gutjahr, Paul C. Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy
This was an enjoyable book on many levels. Most theological books have minimal illustration, but this book opens with several pages of pen and ink sketches of the major people the reader will encounter in Hodge’s life. Accompanying each illustration is a brief biography. Paintings and photographs abound throughout the book. Once grown, Gutjahr divides the book into parts based on the decades of the nineteenth century. At the beginning of each section is a painting or photograph of Hodge from that decade. Hodge’s friends, family, colleagues, and interlocutors are also pictured throughout. The illustrations and their captions added to the quality of the book.
Of course the heart of the book is the text. It does a good job of explaining Hodge’s theological positions. Gutjahr, for the most part, does not engage in his own evaluation of Hodge’s views. Rather, he presents Hodge’s own justifications for them and places them in the intellectual context of Hodge’s time. At times Gutjahr defends Hodge from unjust characterizations. Finally, though Gutjahr does not place as much emphasis as Hoffecker on Hodge’s spiritual life, this aspect of Hodge is not neglected either.
Wenham, Gordon J. Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically
Wenham makes the case that the Psalter should play a greater role in Christian worship. He opens with a historical survey that demonstrates the Psalms played this important role during much of Jewish and Christian history. Wenham believes it is vital to the health of the church to recover this practice. He specifically argues that the Psalter was intended to be memorized and sung. From this foundation Wenham explores the ethical implications that singing the Psalms has. Singing the Psalms engages the worshipper in affirmations about God and commitments to his ways. This leads Wenham to examine the Psalter’s teaching about the law as well as the presence of law within the Psalter. This book is both thought provoking and is persuasive for giving the Psalms a greater role in our worship.
John W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council
O’Malley does a good job of placing Trent in its historical context, tracing the doctrinal and practical issues raised in the council, chronicling the political intrigue that shaped the council, and summarizing the effect of the council.
Anderson, Courtney. To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson
This is an engaging biography of Judson. However it is not annotated, leaving the reader to wonder at times about the source for dialogue or the reporting of the thoughts of certain characters.
Nonetheless the broad outlines are accurate and general sources are provided. The book is devotional and spiritually challenging.
Piper, John. God’s Passion for His Glory
The great value of this book is the complete text of Jonathan Edwards’s The End for Which God Created the World. Edwards defends the logical coherence of and proves with copious examination of Scripture the thesis that the end for which God created the world was the exhibition of his glory so that he might receive back from the creatures praise and glory. This edition is nicely printed and provides helpful explanatory footnotes by Piper. The philosophical section can be difficult reading, but the scriptural section often verges into devotional exaltation. The introductory essays by Piper may be read of skipped depending on the reader’s interest in Piper’s evaluation of modern evangelicalism and his interest in Piper’s own history of reading Edwards.
Piper, John. Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ: The Cost of Bringing the Gospel to the Nations in the Lives of William Tyndale, Adoniram Judson, and John Paton
Brief but well written devotional biographies of Tyndale, Judson, and Paton.
Warfield, B. B. "Agnosticism." Selected Shorter Writings
"In effect, therefore, agnosticism impoverishes, and, in its application to religious truth, secularizes and to this degree degrades life. Felicitating itself on a peculiarly deep reverence for truth on the ground that it will admit into that category only what can make good its right to be so considered under the most stringent tests, it deprives itself of the enjoyment of this truth by leaving the category either entirely or in great part empty."
Warfield, B. B. "Atheism." Selected Shorter Writings
Examines different kinds of atheism and investigates in what ways a person may be an atheist and in what ways it is impossible to be one.
Warfield, B. B. "God." Selected Shorter Writings
He looks at what may be known through general revelation and what may be known through special. Under special revelation he considers God as redeemer and God as Triune. The section on the Trinity is an excellent, brief statement of the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Warfield, B. B. "Godhead." Selected Shorter Writings
He looks at the historical development of this word in English. Argues that it not be replaced by the term Divinity.
Warfield, B. B. "The God of Israel." Selected Shorter Writings
Warfield argues that the God is Israel is not the god of Israel’s imagining but the God revealed to Israel. The Bible may at points touch on false ideas that Israelites had of God, but this is not primarily the Bible’s teaching about God. Warfield then surveys the Old Testament’s teaching about God as the Person who makes his power known in establishing justice and redeeming Israel.
Warfield, B. B. "The Significance of the Confessional Doctrine of the Decree." Selected Shorter Writings
A defense of the WCF’s teaching of the divine decree.
Warfield, B. B. "Some Thoughts on Predestination." Selected Shorter Writings
If God creates a world he cannot control, he is not God. If God chooses to create beings who can do highly dangerous things and chooses to create them to be beyond his control, God does not act wisely and thus does not acts God.
Warfield, B. B. "God’s Providence Over All." Selected Shorter Writings
Warfield notes that the human element of Scripture has come to receive move emphasis. Stress is placed on the distinctive styles of John, Peter, and Paul. But because of the Scripture teaching that God’s providence is over all, this new emphasis on the human aspect of Scripture authorship does not endanger its fully divine aspect. God not only choose the Scripture writers but he providentially guided their whole lives so that they would have the personalities and styles to write precisely what he breathed out.
Kuyper, Abraham. "Manuel Labor (1889)." In Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader
In this collection of newspaper articles Kuyper addresses challenges facing labor in a new industrialized economy comprised of larger corporations. He opposes the liberals’ laissez faire approach as having razed the traditional guilds and replaced them with nothing but the slogan of freedom. He agreed that the guilds needed reform, but he objects to destroying them and replacing them with nothing. He also objects that the structure created by the liberals privileges the bourgeois and enables him to abuse the laborer. On the other hand Kuyper objects to the plans of the social democrats. He says that they would simply tear down the liberal social structure (with whatever benefits it does have) and replace it with their own structure which would place the power of government in the hands of the masses, who would then exercise tyranny over the landed classes. Though Kuyper disagrees with the liberal laissez faire approach he does not wish overmuch government involvement due his vision of sphere sovereignty. Kuyper proposes government recognized, but independently run, chambers of labor that would represent the concerns of the laborer to employers and government. Kuyper’s chambers of labor would have differed from labor unions in that Kuyper objected to the antagonistic nature of strikes as being part of the problem. The chambers were mean to foster more harmony between laborer and manager.
Zaspel, Fred G. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary
Zaspel does an excellent job of directing the reader to all of Warfield’s writings on particular topics. His summaries of Warfield’s teaching are also well done. This chapter on theology proper focuses primarily on the Trinity and God’s sovereign decree.
David T. Tsumura, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part II," 9, no. 2 Bible and Spade (Winter 1996): 37-38.
He takes ‘ed to "mean “high water” and refer to the water flooding out of the subterranean ocean."
Auden, W. H. "Jacob and the Angel." The Complete Works of W. H. Auden: Prose, Vol. 2: 1939-1948
A review of Walter de la Mare’s anthology, Behold This Dreamer. Discusses the emergence of Romanticism.
Auden, W. H. "The Guilty Vicarage: Notes on the Detective Story, by an Addict." The Complete Works of W. H. Auden: Prose, Vol. 2: 1939-1948
Interesting in that Auden clearly distinguishes between the art literature and escape literature and yet does a serious analysis of the latter.
Bowald, Mark. "A Generous Reformer: Kevin Vanhoozer’s Place in Evangelicalism." Southeastern Theological Review 4, no. 1 (Summer 2013): 3-9.
An introduction to a journal issue that reviews Vanhoozer’s Remythologizing Theology. Bowald highlights ways in which Vanhoozer is a committed evangelical (e.g., firm commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture) and ways in which he makes evangelicals nervous (e.g., building bridges out to non-evangelicals; ad hoc use of various interpretational methodologies; less emphasis on propositional truth).
Kidner, "Genesis 2:5, 6: Wet or Dry?" TynBul 17, no. 1 (1966): 109-113.
Kidner argues that the ‘ed in Genesis 2:6 are the waters that covered the earth on the first day of creation. Verse 5 is a kind of parenthesis that introduces the main themes of land and man as cultivator that follow in Genesis 2. Kidner rightly pinpoints the lack of rain as a reason for the absence of plants and shrubs in the land combined with the presence of the ‘ed watering the whole face of the ground as the interpretational conundrum that must be addressed, but his answer does not seem to be the most natural way of reading the text.
Harris, R. Laird. "The Mist, the Canopy, and the Rivers of Eden," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11, no. 4 (Fall 1968): 178-79.
Rejects the views of Kline, Kidner, and Speiser on Gen. 2:4-7. Takes Genesis 2 to focus on the region of Eden. This region is not one that receives rain. He takes the ‘ed to be the rivers that flow through Eden. When there is inundation from the river, the land can be irrigated. Also rejects the canopy theory and the supposition of no rain at all before the Flood, though he endorses the worldwide extent of the Flood.
Augustine held that an omnipotent God did not need six days to create, that God created all things simultaneously (in a single moment), and that the revelation of God’s creative activity in terms of ‘six days’ was an accommodation to human understanding designed to convey certain logical or causal relationships among the creatures. See Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, trans. John Hammond Taylor, SJ (New York: Newman Press, 1982), 36-37, 154. Cf. Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1980), 435-36. Calvin disagreed, maintaining that divine accommodation does not always have to do with what God says but sometimes with what God does. That God too six (literal) days to complete his work was itself the divine pedagogy. See John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (Edinburg: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), 78.
Bruce L. McCormack, "Introduction," in Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction
There can be no doubt that Bavinck is far from poking fun, in the well-known manner (whether with supercilious arrogance of sardonic irony, from the vantage point of a real or imagined cultural superiority), at this Pietistic life style, as at an anachronistic curiosity. He is, rather, of the opinion that this Pietism hold up the mirror to ourselves and opens our eyes to the dangers of an unbridled and unbroken cultural optimism—dangers that Bavinck knew only too well were certainly not imaginary in the circles of his occasionally overzealous fellow-Calvinists. It was his conviction that ‘this movement [Pietism] gives evidence of an appreciation and concern for the one thing needful, which is only too often absent from us in the busy rush of contemporary life.’ Against the Pietists, nevertheless, he maintains the significance of the Christian religion may not be restricted to the redemption and salvation of a few souls. ‘The religious life does have its own content and an independent value. It remains the center, the heart, the hearth, out of which all his [i.e., the Christian’s] thought and action proceeds and from which it receives inspiration and warmth. There, in fellowship with God, he is strengthened for his labor and girds himself for the battle. But that hidden life of fellowship with God is not the whole of life. The prayer room is the inner chamber, but not the whole dwelling in which he lives and moves. The spiritual life does not exclude domestic and civic, social and political life, the life of art and scholarship. To be sure, it is distinct from these things. It also transcends them by far in value, but it does not constitute an irreconcilable opposition to them; rather, it is the power that enables us faithfully to fulfill our earthly vocation and makes all of life a serving of God.’
Jan Veenhof, Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck
If you go back to the Framers, there was nothing more brilliant and more daring that they did than reckoning that they could sustain freedom forever. No one had ever done it. They didn’t give the process a name, so my name for it is the golden triangle. (Alexis de Tocqueville called it ‘the habits of the heart.’) Again and again they said these three things: Freedom requires virtue, leg one. Virtue requires faith of some sort, leg two. Faith of any sort requires freedom—the third leg. Put those together: Freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom—ad infinitum, a recycling triangle, a brilliant daring suggestion as to how freedom can be sustained.
From an interview with Os Guinness about his book A Free People’s Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future
It seems to me that there is a great deal of insight in the above statement. Nevertheless, Guinness’s statement raises a few questions / observations:
-Why enter the triangle at freedom? Why present preserving freedom as the primary goal? Rhetorically, this works well in appealing to Americans. But are not faith and virtue more important than freedom? It should exist for the sake of faith and virtue rather than faith and virtue existing for the sake of freedom. Virtue and faith are goods of themselves, not merely means to freedom.
-The weakest link in this triangle is the assumption that any faith will do. Guinness actually touches on this later in the interview when Olasky asks him to comment on Jefferson’s comment: "It does me no injury to say that there are twenty gods or no god; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Guinness responds: "I think Jefferson is dead wrong on that. He could say that because most people in his day were Christians; whereas today, some of the worldviews have no place for human dignity—and the notion that ideas don’t have consequences is utterly foolish."
-The wrong kind of faith leads to the wrong things being valued as virtues. And since a society that wishes to maintain virtue will have to limit someone’s freedom (e.g., anti-obscenity laws), the “wrong virtues” will result in the wrong freedoms being limited. In other words, freedom is not an absolute good. Moral judgment of some sort is inescapable when a society is deciding on what to permit and what to forbid.
The disagreement over Scripture in the sixteenth century persists today, forming an insurmountable barrier to union between //Protestantism and Rome. If Protestants and Roman Catholics could agree that there is but one source of revelation, the Scriptures (minus the apocryphal books in the Roman Catholic Bible), we could then sit down and discuss the meaning of the biblical texts. But ever since Trent, all efforts to have biblical discussions between Protestants and Roman Catholics have come to dead ends when they encountered a papal encyclical or a conciliar statement. . . . Trent declared that Rome’s interpretation of Scripture is the only correct interpretation. When a Protestant presents a biblical interpretation, if it differs from Rome’s official interpretation, further talk is pointless, because the Roman Catholics simply say the Protestant is wrong.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
From the Roman perspective, justification is a function of the sacerdotal operations of the church; that is, justification takes place primarily through the use of the sacraments, beginning with the sacrament of baptism. Rome says that the sacrament of baptism, among others, functions ex opere operato, which literally means ‘through the working of the work.’ Protestants have understood this to mean that baptism works, as it were, automatically. If a person is baptized, that person is automatically placed in a state of grace or in the state of justification. The Roman Catholic church is quick to say it does not like to use the word automatic, because there has to be a certain predisposition in the recipient of baptism; at the very least he or she must have no hostility toward the reception of the sacrament in order for it to function. In any case, Rome has a high view of the efficacy of baptism to bring a person into a state of grace. This is because, in the sacrament of baptism, grace is said to be infused or poured into the soul.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
Rome teaches that
God will not say that a person is just unless that person ,under analysis, is found to be actually just. . . . Righteousness must be inherent within the person; God must examine his life and find righteousness there. If a person dies in mortal sin, he goes to hell. If the person dies with any sin, with any imperfection or blemish on his soul, he cannot be admitted to heaven but must first go through the purging fires of purgatory, where his impurities are cleansed away until such time as righteousness is truly inherent in him.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
Baptism conveys grace ex opere operato, and the grace that is conveyed in baptism is the grace of regeneration. This means that when a person is baptized, he is born again of the Spirit and the disposition of his soul is changed, leaving him justified in the sight of God . . . . However, even though baptism cleanses a person of the power and guilt of original sin and infuses into him the grace of justification, it does not leave him perfectly sanctified. There is still something of the nature of sin left over. In Roman terms, baptism leaves a person with concupiscence, an inclination or disposition toward sin, which accounts for the fact that baptized people frequently fall back into sin. However, concupiscence is not itself sin. This is a point of disagreement for Protestants, for whom anything that is a disposition to sin is sin. According to Rome, sins that are committed after baptism, especially mortal sins, destroy the justifying grace of baptism, which makes it necessary for a person to be justified again.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
Rome does not regard confirmation as a new infusion of grace in addition to baptism, but as an increase of grace unto maturity. . . . In most cases, confirmation is administered when a child reaches the ‘age of discretion,’ the age when he can understand the rite (usually taken to be around the age of seven). It is usually administered by a bishop and involves anointing with oil and the laying on of hands.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
A wedding is not merely an external rite involving promises, sanctions, and authoritative decrees, but special grace is given to the couple to enable them to accomplish a real mystical union."
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
Originally, extreme unction was a healing rite, not a last rite, and the Roman Catholic Church only recently reemphasized that it is a gift of grace that is to be used any time a person is seriously ill, not with a view simply to prepare him for death, but hopefully to bring healing. Its primary use, however, is as a final anointing of grace to strengthen penance, lest a person die with mortal sin in his life and therefore go to hell, the mortal sin having killed grace of justification. . . . It is administer by a priest, who applies oil that has been consecrated and blessed by a bishop to the forehead (usually in the shape of a cross) and to the hands while praying.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
The sacrament of holy orders is the ordination of a priest, bishop, or deacon. It also gives and infusion of grace, which confers special powers to those who receive it. The two special powers given to a priest in ordination are the power of absolution and the power of consecration. Absolution is the power to forgive sins as part of the sacrament of penance, allowing the recipient to receive the sacraments without sin. Consecration is the act by which the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper are set apart and, according to Roman Catholic belief, transformed into the body and blood of Christ. The priest accomplishes the act of consecration by speaking the words of institution.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
The sacrament of penance was instituted by the church to help people who commit mortal sin.. . . It is regarded as the second plank of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls. One makes shipwreck of his soul by committing mortal sin, which destroys the grace of justification. However, the person can be restored to justification through penance. . . . There are three dimensions to the sacrament of penance—contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Contrition means turning away from sin out of a genuine sense of having offended God, a brokenness of heart, not merely a fear of punishment, which we call attrition. . . . The second dimension, confession, is, of course, the act of confessing one’s sins. Protestants have no issue with contrition and confession. The issue is the third dimension of penance, which is satisfaction. Roman Catholics teach that for the sacrament to be complete, it is necessary for the penitent believer to do ‘works of satisfaction,’ which satisfy the demands of God’s justice. So, a sinner is not off the hook when he confesses his sins; he still must do works of satisfaction. These works may be very small. The sinner may be required to say five ‘Hail Marys’ or three ‘Our Fathers’ . . . . But if his sins are especially severe, he may be required to make a pilgrimage. One of the favorite methods of doing works of satisfaction in the church historically has been the giving of alms. As I noted earlier, Rome teaches that a work of satisfaction gives the penitent sinner congruous merit. This kind of merit is distinguished from condign merit. Condign merit is so meritorious that God must reward it; congruous merit is only so meritorious that it is congruous or fitting for God to reward it. Still, it is true merit. It is accrued to the person, and without that merit the penitent sinner, no matter how much faith and trust he has in the atonement of Jesus Christ, cannot be justified.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
"In the Eucharist, there is bread and wine. The substance of bread and wine and the accidens of bread and wine are present. According to Rome, in the miracle of the Mass, at the prayer of consecration, the substance of the elements is transformed supernaturally into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, but the accidens of bread and wine remain. The bread still looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, and smells like bread. . . . The substance of it, the essence of it, has been supernaturally transformed to the body, the flesh, of Jesus Christ. Likewise, the substance of the wine has been transformed to the substance of the blood of Christ. . . . Rome nuances its teaching on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, saying that it is an unbloody sacrifice and that it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ. However, the whole idea of any kind of sacrifice happening in new-covenant worship is repugnant to Protestants, who hold that the value, the significance, and the merit of Christ’s suffering on the cross was so great that to repeat it is to denigrate it. Protestants also struggle with the question of how the human nature of Christ can be in more than one place at the same time. The Roman Catholic view essentially attributes the quality of omnipresence to the physical body of Jesus.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
First, papal infallibility is restricted to those utterances of the pope on faith or morals that are given ex cathedra, that is, when he is giving a decision on behalf of the whole church. Therefore, Vatican I was not saying that if we encountered the pope on the streets of Rome and asked him for directions to the nearest pizza parlor, we could assume that he would give impeccably accurate directions. . . . In other words, the council did not proclaim an infallibility of person, merely an infallibility of office only when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, speaking from his official chair, exercising the office of the pope. Second, according to this statement, papal infallibility is not intrinsic; rather, it comes through the divine assistance promised to the pope in Peter.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
This doctrine was officially declared in a papal encyclical in 1854. . . . It is the belief that Mary was not infected with original sin at her conception, so she lived a sinless life. This doctrine, of course, has drawn strong objections from Protestants. One problem is that if Mary was sinless, she did not need a Redeemer. Also, if she had no sin, she was herself fit to be the champion of our redemption in some degree. Indeed, this doctrine has fueled the view in Roman Catholic circles that Mary is our Co-Redemptrix, that she participated in the redemptive process. This title has not been official sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, and it is much disputed in Rome, but many hold this view of Mary.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
Officially, the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction the worship of Mary—but it comes very close. Rome sees a difference between what it calls latria and dulia. Latria is the Greek word for worship, while dulia is the Greek word for service. Giving latria to something other than God would be to worship and idol. Giving dulia is simply to give service, obeisance, or veneration, which can be given to things other than God. Rome made this same distinction with regard to statues during the iconoclastic controversy in the Reformation era; it said that when people bowed down and prayed before images, they were not worshipping them, they were merely doing service, using them as means to stimulate their own worship. Rome insists that Mary is given dulia, not latria; she is venerated but not worshiped. However, for all practical purposes, I believe I can say without fear of ever being proven wrong that millions of Roman Catholic people today worship Mary. In doing so, they believe they are doing what the church is calling them to do. I grant that there is a legitimate technical distinction between latria and dulia, between worship and veneration, but it can be very hard to spot the line of separation. When people are bowing down before statues, that is of the essence of worship.
R. C. Sproul, Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
Question 1 [of the Heidelberg Catechism] shows the glorious Reformation Protestant insight into the fact that assurance is to be the normal experience of every Christian believer and not simply the preserve of a few special saints who have been given extraordinary insight into their status before God, as was the medieval Catholic position.
This is perhaps one of the greatest Protestant insights of the Reformation. We live in an age where conversion to Roman Catholicism is not uncommon among those who have been brought up as evangelicals. There are many reasons for this: some speak of being attracted by the beauty of the liturgy in comparison with what is often seen as a casual and irreverent flippancy in evangelical services; others like the idea of historical continuity, of knowing where the church has been throughout history; still others find the authority structure to be attractive in an age of flux and uncertainty. Whatever the reasons, most Protestants would concede that Rome has certain attractions. Nevertheless, the one thing that every Protestant who converts to Rome loses is assurance of faith.
. . . . . . . . . .
The insight of the Reformation on assurance was key, theologically and pastorally. And, given that it is one thing that every convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism must lose, it is worth nothing its priority in the Heidelberg Catechism. The answer is so beautifully phrased; and yet if one ceases to be Protestant, one must cease to claim HC 1 as one’s own. That is a very high price to pay. Speaking for myself, all of the liturgical beauty of Rome, all of the tradition, all of the clarity and authority structure (and that clarity is often, I think, more in the eye of the beholder than the Church it itself) cannot compensate for the loss of the knowledge that I know I have been purchased by the precious blood of Christ that conversion to Rome requires."
Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative
HC 1, which Trueman alludes to, reads as follows:
Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.
One question I face in class as a church historian is, ‘If doctrine develops, does this mean that what unites us to Christ changes over time too?’ This is an excellent question and, indeed, a rather obvious one when one is investigating the history of doctrine. Two things need to be borne in mind here.
First, Scripture gives no hint that that which saves changes: it is always trust in Christ that unites one to Christ. Thus, someone who was a believer in the first century is saved in the same way as someone who believes in the twenty-first.
Second, as noted above, the public criteria for what constitutes a credible profession of faith do change over time, as do the standards for office-bearing. As the church reflected upon the identity of Christ and upon Scripture over time, the limitations and inadequacies of certain formulations became more apparent. We noted above that in the third century, the view that Christ was subordinate to the Father in terms of his being was considered acceptable because the implications of that position had not been fully worked out. Once this had been done, and the unacceptable, unbiblical implications of such a position had become clear, the church put in place statements that ruled such views out of bounds. It is not that people who believed in Christ’s subordination in the second century could not therefore have been saved—we are all, after all, saved despite some of the things which we believe. It is rather that the church had come to an understanding that protect and to articulate the gospel, accurate concepts and appropriate language were necessary, and some of these had to change over time as the in adequacy and abuse of earlier forms became clear.
Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative
Another way of approaching the difficulty of doctrinal development is to note that it is one thing to embrace an error unwittingly; it is another to reject the truth to embrace that error.
If anyone tries to allegorize prophecies of this kind [Isa. 11:6-9; 30:25-26], they will not be found consistent with themselves in all points . . . . The resurrection of the righteous takes place after the coming of Antichrist and the destruction of all nations under his rule. In that resurrection the righteous will reign in the earth, growing stronger in the sight of the Lord. In him they will become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and in that kingdom they will enjoy interaction and communion with the holy angels (the spiritual beings), as well as with those whom the Lord will find in the flesh awaiting him from heaven, who have suffered tribulation and escaped the hands of the wicked one. . . . . (5:35,1)."
After citations of Rev 20:12-15; Matt 25:41; Rev. 21:1-4; Isaiah 65:17-18; 1 Cor. 7:31; and Matt. 24:35), Irenaeus says,
Neither the substance nor the essence of the creation will be annihilated, for the one who established it is faithful and true, but ‘the present form of this world is passing away’ [1 Cor 7:31]—that is, all that in which transgression has occurred and humankind has aged. . . . But when this present fashion of things passes away, and humanity has been renewed and flourishes in an incorruptible state, which will preclude the possibility of becoming old, then the new heaven and the new earth will be, in which a new humanity will remain forever, always communing with God. . . . (5:36,1)
John distinctly foresaw the first ‘resurrection of the righteous’ [Luke 14:14] and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonizes with his vision. The Lord also taught this when he promised that he would drink the cup new with his disciples in the kingdom [Matt 26:29]. The apostle also has confessed that the creation will be free from the bondage of corruption and will pass into the liberty of the children of God [Rom 8:21].
In all these things, and by them all, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned humanity and promised the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who will bring humankind forth at the resurrection of the righteous, and who fulfills the promises about the kingdom of his Son. He will in due course bestow in a paternal manner what ‘no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived’ [1 Cor 2:9]. For there is one Son, who accomplished his Father’s will; and one human race in which the mysteries of God are accomplished—’things into which the angels long to look’ [1 Pet 1:12]. But they are not able to search out the wisdom of God, through which his handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with his Son, is brought to perfection—that his offspring, the first-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (that is, to what had been made) and should be contained in it; and, on the other hand, that the creature should contain the Word and ascend to him, passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God (5:36,3).
James R. Payton, Jr. Irenaeus on the Christian Faith: A Condensation of Against Heresies
In discussions of theology, it has become commonplace to talk about two horizons in interpretation: the horizon of the text and the horizon of the interpreter or the interpreting community. This has led in some cases to a radical skepticism concerning the possibility of producing stable and reliable interpretations. We may share the same text, but if I am a man and you are a woman, or I am white and you are black, is there anything more than our starting point—the text itself—to connect our interpretations? And is it possible to compare your interpretation with min and decide which of us, if either, has produced a more accurate account of what the text actually says or does?
If we understand human nature as fixed, as something which is not constructed by the individual or by the community but something which is given by God in his address to us, then we are on much more secure ground in moving theological statements from one time, place, or culture to another. Human nature is something which is more basic than gender, glass, culture, location, or time. It cannot be reduced to or contained within a specific context such as to isolate it from all else. This is not to deny that context has a huge impact upon who we are and how we think; it is simply to say that all of these particulars that make individuals unique and allow us to differentiate one person from another are relativized by the universal reality of human nature that binds us all together.
Human beings remain essentially the same in terms of their basic nature as those made in God’s image and addressed by his word even as we move from place to place and from generation to generation. God remains the same; his image remains the same; his address to us remains the same. . . .
In short, a biblical understanding of human nature as a universal will temper any talk that seeks to dismiss theological statements from the past on the simplistic ground that there is nothing in common between us and the people who wrote them.
Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative