Philosophical Presuppositions and Teachings about God

In some of my research for my dissertation, I've come across the idea of the presuppositions contained in each religion. Any system of belief, whether it be a religious belief of empirical scientific belief, forms the basis of what each person considers knowledge. Of course, if the belief is warranted or not, and thus counts as knowledge or not, is another matter. But I'm not dealing here with the question of whether the belief is warranted or not. Perhaps I'll save that for another post.

Anyway, the idea is that since each religion has these philosophical presuppositions about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, and the existence and nature of divine being(s), a religion is built upon the foundation of a philosophical worldview. That's nothing surprising, since all opinions are so – everything we think, we get from our philosophical worldview, the system that we build all of our new ideas out of, and into which we integrate new knowledge.

Josef Seifert is of the opinion, at least, that this means you can't separate the philosophical teaching about God (assuming you accept there is one) from the revealed teaching about God in the religion which builds upon the particular philosophical teaching – and vice versa, that if you follow a given philosophical teaching to its conclusion, and if it implies a religious teaching, you're intellectually obligated to follow through, as the teachings aren't really teaching different things.

Theologically seen, it's kind of like the idea of general revelation leading to specific revelation. The breaking point is usually that many Christian theologians would say that you can't jump the gap between the two, even if they do teach the same thing. There's no way of proving that they are, in fact, the same understanding of God. Some would even claim that they're not (but that's another post).

Is there a philosophical necessity that a given worldview must end in revealed religion? Given that there's absolute truth, is this the roots of an argument for exclusive religion based on which revealed religion fits the philosophical nature of the world best (well, an idea world in which we could all agree about the nature of it even outside of religious dispute)?

This seems to not only give us grounds for comparative theology outside of self-justifying claims of exclusivity in a religious doctrine, but also gives a pretty sharp impetus to take a long, hard look at the implicit epistemology and ontology of the West – because materialistic naturalism lives on borrowed foundations, and it borrows those foundations, along with its epistemic certainty, from Christian Theism. (I argue this second assertion in a forthcoming [hopefully] article, an update regarding the when and where will be posted assuming it gets published)

Comparative theology – not very politically correct, but obligatory?

Missiology and Ecclesiology

Last night I was talking with an acquaintance of mine, and in the course of the discussion, we got on to both the topic of missionary/evangelistic activity and the liturgy of the church. He's a Catholic, and he happened to mention that he had read somewhere that even if the Bible were to disappear, in theory, the liturgy of the Catholic church retained everything necessary for faith. It's apparently supposed to present the Gospel in both an outreach and proclamation manner, thus fulfilling the idea of the constant calling to repentance and the proclamation of the Gospel to believers.

Now, I'm not about to become Catholic by any means, and he even admitted that the reality rarely matched the ideal, but it got me thinking. To what extent can we say that about our ecclesiology, and the method in which we worship? If we're not to make the Bible into our God, and set the written scripture above the message of God, would we still be able to say that we are proclaiming the Gospel even when we don't quote it?

I think this is maybe connected to the idea of "lifestyle evangelism" popular in evangelical churches, but I mean more than that. I'm not just talking about evangelism, for one – I'm also meaning the general proclamation of the Gospel for its value even to the believer. And I'm not saying it's just a personal thing. It's very much a corporate thing, the how we do church.

I seem to remember Karl Barth writing something about missions being the assignment of the church. John Flett notes that missionary societies arose because the ecclesiologies weren't sufficient. There's a pretty good consensus, as far as I've read, that missions are supposed to happen within the context of the church. Does how we do church play a role in that (obviously, but I mean more than cultural expression vs. exporting western styles)? Do we "do missions" by "doing church?" If we do, are we proclaiming the Gospel in how we "do church?" In what a church is? In the liturgy and forms we choose?

I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively, but I would tentatively say, probably yes. What it means to "be church" and "do church" isn't the most popular field of study in modern times, but I think it's something we might need to focus a bit more on, if we're living out the theology we claim to believe.

Maybe, if I have time, and can figure out the right resources, this will become an article at some point, but for now, it's just my questioning out there.

The Decline of the West?

You see a lot lately about the decline of western Christianity. How the former sending nations are now a mission field themselves. I'm not disagreeing with the truth behind these statements, nor saying that western culture is somehow inherently superior. But I think that we are just having our noses rubbed in a situation that has pretty much always been there.

Take, for example, the "religious right" rallying around Glenn Beck and the Kristallnacht-esque desires of some regarding Cordoba House. These things are terrible, honestly. Glenn Beck is no Christian theologian (and no Christian), and the attitudes toward Cordoba House are deplorable. But what's the underlying issue that causes this? Are Americans really so naïve to think that this is right? Well, yes. And not just Americans. The problem is that people who call themselves Christians get lumped in with those who really are.

You here just as much, in some circles, about the secularization of Europe, and the fall of the great "Christian nations." And you get some of the same reactions to Islam over here (anyone remember Switzerland's mosque ban?). But the fact is, this is just a reflection of the way things have probably always been.

Christian theologians tend to divide the idea of Christianity into two segments, the visible and the invisible church. In Europe, the visible church was huge. In America, it still is. But membership in the visible church has nothing to do with being a Christian – and everything to do with assuming cultural Christianity, nominal Christianity, and peer-pressure Christianity (in fact, what a lot of western-superior minded missiologists accuse "native" churches of doing). When one is a Christian because of family or culture, one isn't a real Christian, and one isn't following Christ. Faith doesn't come by wanting to fit in, but from God alone.

Christianity in America gets associated with middle-class mores, ethics, and culture – the bürgerliche Gesellschaft, if you will. It happened in Europe, and was revealed as bankrupt, and now it's happening in North America. This shouldn't surprise us, really. We're supposed to be following a difficult way, but increasingly churches tout the effectiveness of a vending machine God, who basically wants you to be good and is there for you when you need him – emotional-psychological monotheism, not Christianity. Or worse, some even claim the physical benefits God gives – the prosperity preachers, or how one gets one's "best life now". This is a tragedy. People, even those who genuinely care about Christ, get more caught up in issues connected to culture than the Gospel.

This tragedy is nothing new, and it's probably not going away. The real Christians will always be the chosen few of God. While stamping Christianity out didn't work, covering it in mediocrity and derailing it has done far more damage. The Reformation shook things up, but both sides ended up in the position of either change for the sake of change or tradition for the sake of tradition (note: I'm just meaning tradition as "the way we've always done it, not traditio as Catholic doctrine, I'm not opening that box just yet).

It's time to focus on what really matters. It has been a national, an international movement before, and can be again. It too often isn't now. We've had our fill of church and culture, our fill of Gospel and, (Gospel and abstinence, Gospel and Republicanism, Gospel and Socialism, etc.), and we want something more. In every land, in every people, in every tongue, we thirst for God, for the Gospel proclaimed, and for our faith not to be co-opted for an agenda.

Don't play along anymore. Make a difference by deciding to live with your priorities in order, you who claim to follow Christ. Prove that, and stop proving your political affiliation or your commitment to comfort.

Your life is not yours, it was bought with a price.

Why does „conservative“ seem to really mean „bullheadedly offensive“ ?

Word of warning: I'm using conservative in this post in a strictly theological sense.

 

You know, I'm a relatively conservative theologian. I moved away from fundamentalism, sure, and I hold a lot of opinions unpopular in the church I grew up in, but really, there are some folks out there who make all of conservative Christianity look bad without even being super-fundamentalist!

 

There's a "movement", if you can call it that, to "re-start" the reformation here in Germany. A certain guy in Heidelberg, Sebastian Heck, has gotten support from the PCA to plant new churches over here as there's "no church or denomination today in Germany that can claim to legitimately be an heir of the Reformation" and "Germany is a thoroughly secular nation." I saw this video on the Heidelblog (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/a-great-god-and-a-great-goal-reformation2germany/) which, although I read, is not on my blogroll because I have to take him with a huge grain of salt. Now, I have comments about this idea, but first, as if this idea isn't enough, take a look at some of the response to it (http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/08/28/the-reformed-are-aiming-at-planting-the-calvinist-faith-back-in-germany/) (Yeah, I don't read that one at all)

 

Egad. So working backwards:

 

Firstly, the SELK is NOT an heir of the Reformation, because they hold to the idea of a special status for the ordained. It's a 2-class system, just not as strong as what Luther had an issue with (of course, I'l make this argument, slightly changed, for several US denominations that deny women ordination in today's cultural situation, but here I mean even among men).

 

Secondly, the idea of exporting American evangelicalism over here even offends me! The assertions made by Herr Heck and his supporting Americans are puerile and unfounded, and I would doubt if those "statistics" even hold true in the former east. (Übrigens, meine deutschsprächige LeserInnen, ich habe mal versucht den Herrn Heck zur Rede zu stellen, und überraschenderweise hatte er keine Lust mit mir über Theologie zu reden, oder sogar zu erklären warum er meinte solch ein Programm erforderlich sei. Ich vermute, es wäre wohl schwerer zu behaupten daß man von amerkianischen Gemeinden Geld bekommen soll zu jemandem der kennt sich aus mit der Theologie wie sie heute in Deutschland ist...). There's a spectrum in the member churches of the EKD, but the fact that this spectrum exists hardly means that they are not heirs of the Reformation. No, there's not a repressive shouting down of any idea less than 100 years old, but I'm proud to be a member of an EKD member church. See four.

 

Thirdly, the R2G assertion is entirely too simplified. Yes, the EKD is an umbrella organization, and yes, the Reformed and Lutheran churches have communion with each other, as well as some theological bleed-over. But even if he wants to say there's no Reformed church, due to the EKD, he can only do so by ignoring the Reformierte Kirche that are part of the EKD (as well as the independent ones). Hey, I'm pretty sure my advisor is a member of the Reformierte Kirche in Bayern and not the Evangelische Lutherische Kirche in Bayern (well, he dedicated a book to the newest congregation here in München). Not to mention the fact that the church in Baden-Württemburg is so influenced by the Reformed side of things that going to church one Sunday in BW and another in Bayern is enough to make you wonder if they agree on ANYthing.

 

Fourthly, I talk to pastors, theologians, and those who will be pastors in EKD member churches nearly every day. In general, both here and in the States, I find the ur-conservative bogeyman, the overplayed, stereotyped "flaming liberal" to be a straw man. The big fight was years ago, when we saw Machen and Bultmann and others going nuts. When Barth tried to walk a middle ground. I've got news, folks – none of those theologians wanted to do anything but love and serve Christ as best as possible, and a lot of the excesses on both sides (or all three) have balanced out – except in those denominations that checked out of the dialogue because they couldn't handle someone having a different opinion.

You know, you folks embarrass me for your lack of understanding and willingness to dialogue as much as the backwoods fundamentalists embarrass me for the characterizations they've caused (and yes, being an American Christian in Europe means you get immediately compared with them if you don't distance yourself).

 

I could rant a lot longer on this, and connected topics, but I'll stop for now, it's probably healthier.

An Explanation of the Change

So if you're reading this, you probably haven't read the previous posts. That's fine. I began this blog primarily as a way to think through things myself, and to share concepts with those close to me. It wasn't a very good vehicle for that, mostly because I wasn't very good at updating, and I didn't have a good idea of what I wanted to write.

That's changing now.

I've read from several places recently on the idea of blogs as academic and theological discourse, as well as the idea of the blogosphere, or at least the internet, possibly replacing peer-reviewed journals for the purpose of publication, in the interest of exposing ideas to a wider audience and enabling the academic conversation to take place much faster. While I don't believe that online scholarship without a review process can replace peer-reviewing entirely, these ideas have made me rethink what I'm doing and why.

I don't intend on reporting much on the news, or my personal life – for the first, there's plenty of other places to go, and for the second, well, you're less interested in that than you believe yourself to be, really. I do intend on writing more on topics that interact with my current research, research I'd like to do, and things I encounter reading other bloggers. I may even(gasp!) add a blogroll.

An Adjustment

I've recently read Benjamin Myers' article about theological blogging in Cultural Encounters, and it's made me think some about why I'm writing this blog. I won't be finishing the series on complementarianism that I started, at least, and the coming posts will reflect a change in how I understand what I'm doing. So I'll be writing about some different stuff from here on.

Why I’m Not a Complementarian Part 1

One of the arguments still going around in Protestant circles, especially in Evangelical ones, is the nature of the relation between men and women. There's two major opinions on the issue, "complementarian" and "egalitarian":

Egalitarian: Men and women are equal. Everything one can do, the other can do, and they are of equal worth. (Think "Egalité")

Complementarian: Men and women are of equal value, but have different God-ordained roles. Most complementarians would prohibit women from being Pastors, for example (Think they "complement" each other).

 

I remember when I was about 16 years old, the Youth Pastor at my church introduced me to the idea of complementarianism. Of course, he didn't call it that, but during a phone conversation, he had me look up 1 Timothy 2:9-15. This reads, in the HCSB:

⁹ Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, ^(A) with decency and good sense; not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, ^(B) pearls, or expensive apparel, ¹⁰ but with good works, ^(C) as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God. ¹¹ A woman should learn in silence with full submission. ^(D)
12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. ¹³ For Adam was created first, then Eve. ^(E)
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. ^(F)
15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues ^[a] in faith, love, and holiness, ^(G) with good sense.

Paul writes something similar in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36:

³⁴ the women ^[h] should be silent in the churches, ^(T) for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵ And if they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands ^(U) at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting. ³⁶ Did the word of God originate from you, or did it come to you only?

 

I was totally shocked to hear him teach me this. I had some real problems, too, because I had always been taught about equality – had I been fooled?

 

There's a big question looming here: Is Paul talking about the same thing in both places? There's some pretty good reasons why he might not be.

In Corinthians, that last verse is directed at men, so Paul was in a sense saying "did the word of God only come to you men?" And just a little bit before, Paul was talking about women praying and prophesying in the church (Chapter 11)! Paul's letter to the church in Corinth was a reply – here in ch 14, he quotes from the original letter to deny it: the position of the men-only crowd in Corinth is demonstrated to be false.

 

1 Corinthians 11, by the way, is a pretty good parallel to 1 Timothy 2, in this issue. So how do we deal with this?

The question to ask here is if Paul was prescribing how things should be or describing how they are. Timothy was in Ephesus, the cult-city of the goddess Artemis. Corinth was the center of Aphrodite worship. So there's good reason to believe that Paul is dealing with very time- and place-specific issues here. The other reason is this: If you want to believe that he was prescribing behavior, you have to take the whole package. No gold, no pearls, no elaborate hairstyles, no expensive clothing (Timothy) no short hair, no uncovered hair (Corinthians)….and worst of all, in the same letter, in 1 Timothy 6:1, you give slavery the OK.

 

So if Paul meant something else, how do we deal with the relationship between men and women? How about Galatians 3:28:

²⁸ There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, ^(A) male or female; ^(B) for you are all one ^(C) in Christ Jesus.

 

There's not differences between us, and we are all equal. Equal in value as well as in function.

Interestingly enough, Paul accepts this pretty clearly in Romans 16:7:

⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junia, ^[a] my fellow countrymen ^(A) and fellow prisoners. ^(B) They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

What's the big deal here? Junia is a woman's name. Some say it's a short form of Junius, but there's no evidence for that, and there's hundreds of instances of Junia as a woman's name. Junia may well have even been a female apostle (there's some argument about the second sentence), but she was clearly a woman of some importance. Not enough? Look at Romans 1:1, where Pheobe is the diakonos of the church.

 

There's going to be a part 2 to this, in the next day or so.

Not Dead

Yeah, so I haven't blogged in a while, but I will be starting it up again.

In other news, I've passed my Examen Hebraicum Bavaricum, though one wonders what good it will do me...

and,

I write like
Charles Dickens

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Some Disturbing Parallels

This will probably be unpopular with some, but I have to share my concerns regardless.

I'm going to describe a political stance by Christians here, and let's try to guess what it is, ok? Don't read the footnotes until after I identify it, or it will give it away.

1. Use of Old Testament to define current national laws (not just ethics) (1)
   
2. Sees itself as the best possibility for political Christendom (2)
   
3. Justifies the criminalization of non-Christian activity or, in some cases, of simply not being Christian (3) (4) (5)
   
4. Sees a definitive regulative principle for all people given by God (in some cases, to be enforced by the Christian on the nonChristian) (6)
   
5. The highest (or a very high) goal is one united Christian nation (7)
   
6. Positive Christianity is connected with national pride (8)
   
7. Seeks to place 'strong' Christians in power and as government officials, sees them as the only ones fit to govern (9)
   

Now, if you're familiar with it, I'm sure you've already guessed the popular-in-parts-of-America 'Christian Reconstructionism', also called 'Theonomy' (10) – the idea that civil government should reflect Biblical Law. In some forms it proposes making homosexuality and adultery punishable by death. It has about zero religious tolerance, as any nonChristian expression would be legally forbidden. It also tends to want a gold standard, to make conscription impossible, and limit the taxation ability of the state, as well as often desiring to end all governmental welfare benefits.

If that makes you uncomfortable, you're not alone - but you're about to be made even more uncomfortable.

I'm not talking about Christian Reconstructionism, although the position I described fits it, too. You can read the footnotes now. What I described was the 'Glaubensbewegung Deutsche Christen', the church movement that supported Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in Germany.

Worried yet? You should be, there are adherents calling for revolution already (11).

The twisting of Scripture by politically-minded Christians to support their own causes and ends doesn't seem to end well – in my opinion it never does. And yet there's a movement in America to do just that. There's been quite a bit of opposition to it theologically, by folks such as Meredith Kline and Michael Horton, among others, and of course I stand theologically opposed to it. I only bring out these historical parallels because I believe that there's no such thing as a new heresy, merely old ones repackaged.

Different verses, different width of focus, same misapplication, same twisting. Christians should be interacting with the world and secular government in a manner that is Christian first, not conservative, not comfortable middle-class, not culture-X-value based. Perhaps soon I can visit the idea of exactly what that should be, as we need a biblically grounded, theologically stable definition of what that is.

Edit: Apparently footnotes in Word don't publish to Blogger. Added them in. Nonattributed German quotes are from "Volkstum gegen Bekenntnis: Die Richtlinien der Deutschen Christen und die Barmer Theologische Erklärung" by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Sauer, quoting Richlinien von 6 Juni 1932

(1) For example, 2 Samuel 12:31

(2)"Wir finden aber bei näherem Zusehen, daß es in ihrem Besten Kopie des Christtums [sic] ist." - Erzbischof von Freibourg, 1944

(3)" Wir lehnen die Judenmission in Deutschland ab, solange die Juden das Staatsbürgerrecht
besitzen und damit die Gefahr der Rassenverschleierung und –bastardierung besteht.
Die Heilige Schrift weiß auch etwas zu sagen von heiligem Zorn und sich versagender
Liebe. Insbesondere ist die Eheschließung zwischen Deutschen und Juden zu verbieten."

(4) "Hierher gehört auch, daß unsere Kirche keine Menschen judenblütiger Art mehr in ihren Reihen aufnehmen darf. Wir […] haben immer wieder betont: judenblütige Menschen gehören nicht in die deutsche Volkskirche, weder auf die Kanzel, noch unter die Kanzel. Und wo sie auf den Kanzeln stehen, haben sie so schnell wie möglich zu verschwinden.“" - Reinhold Krause

(5) "So glaube ich heute im Sinne des allmächtigen Schöpfers zu handeln: indem ich mich des Juden erwehre, kämpfe ich für das Werk des Herrn", -Adolf Hitler, using Matthew 13:36-41

(4)" Wir sehen in Rasse, Volkstum und Nation uns von Gott geschenkte und anvertraute Lebensordnungen,
für deren Erhaltung zu sorgen, uns Gottes Gesetz ist."

(5)"...ein
Kirchenvolk zu werden. Wir wollen eine lebendige Volkskirche, die Ausdruck aller Glaubenskräfte
unseres Volkes ist."

(6) "Wir stehen auf dem Boden des positiven Christentums. Wir bekennen uns zu einem bejahenden
artgemäßen Christusglauben, wie er deutschem Luthergeist und heldischer Frömmigkeit
entspricht"

(7) "Wir wollen eine evangelische Kirche, die im Volkstum wurzelt, und lehnen den Geist eines
christlichen Weltbürgertums ab. Wir wollen die aus diesem Geist entspringenden verderblichen
Erscheinungen wie Pazifismus, Internationale, Freimaurertum usw. durch den Glauben
an unsere von Gott befohlene völkische Sendung überwinden"

(8)"Wir stehen auf dem Boden des positiven Christentums. Wir bekennen uns zu einem bejahenden
artgemäßen Christusglauben, wie er deutschem Luthergeist und heldischer Frömmigkeit
entspricht."

(9)„Kein einziges Volk der Welt hat so wie das unsere einen Staatsmann, dem es so ernst um das Christliche ist; als Adolf Hitler am 1. Mai seine große Rede mit einem Gebet schloß, hat die ganze Welt die wunderbare Aufrichtigkeit darin gespürt.“ - Emanuel Hirsch

(10) Unfortunately, Theonomy used to refer to Christian Reconstructionism is used wrongly. It really should refer to the idea that God is the sole source of ethics. See Corneilus Van Til and Paul Tillich. Greg Bahnsen and Gary North are responsible for this twisted usage, with North going so far as desiring to prohibit nonChristians from voting and citizenship

(11) such as, for example, the so-called 'Black Robe Regiment'

Bullshit

So I'm taking a break from my planned postings, due to a ridiculous amount of work, and the great desire to post the following:

 

I've recently gotten a copy of "Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology", edited by Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea. Now, I got the book as a resource, but I'm having an amazing amount of fun with it, most recently with the essay "Theology as a Bull Session" by Randall Rauser.

Apparently, "Bullshit" is an official philosophical term. It even comes in two varieties!

Frankfurtian (intentional) Bullshit: intentionally insincere communication

Cohenian (product) Bullshit: communication that is inherently nonsense

Naturally, Rauser deals with Cohenian Bullshit in the realm of academia, as we give the benefit of the doubt to those who communicate there that they aren't trying to deceive us. He identifies three types:

Unclarifiable Unclarity: something not only un-understandably worded, but done so in such a manner that one cannot explain it properly

Clarifiable Unclarity: something obscurely worded, that could be explained differently and be understood

Irretrievable Speculation: something that cannot possibly be verified as true or not

 

I find that I read, and have read, a lot of the latter Bullshit. Heidegger comes to mind as one who is particularly guilty, as does Moltmann (whom Rauser also accuses of Product Bullshit. Of note is also that Rauser suggests Moltman as the patron saint of the Emerging Church and McLaren, which I found hilarious and rather fitting). This is why I'm committed to clarity (though I'm sure I fail quite spectacularly)!

Law and Grace

There's a distinction that needs to be made here, in reading what the Bible presents to us. We have passages in which the Mosaic Law is presented, and passages in which the grace of Christ is presented. The idea of Old and New Testament lead to the idea that one leads right into the other…and it's not exactly that way.

The Law has to be distinguished from the Gospel. A traditional example comes from article IV of the Apology of the Confessio Augustana (by Philipp Melanchthon):

 

"All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law, and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in the Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for His sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or when, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal."

 

The importance of this should be pretty self evident – note that Luther even wrote "…whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture"

So what is the distinction to be made?

The Lutheran Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) states it thusly:

 

"Anything that preaches concerning our sins and God's wrath, let it be done how or when it will, that is all a preaching of the Law. Again, the Gospel is such a preaching as shows and gives nothing else than grace and forgiveness in Christ" (Article 5)

 

This is found also in the Reformed tradition, in the writings of Calvin as well as the Westminster Confession, and it gets implied in the Heidelberg Catechism (see below).

So, when we divide things this way, each has a purpose – what's the point of the Law? Was it a way to be holy before God, a way to get justified in the Old Testament? Absolutely not! Here's some more examples:

 

"The law comes, not to reform the sinner nor to show him or her the "narrow way" to life, but to crush the sinner's hopes of escaping God's wrath through personal effort or even cooperation."(Modern Reformation May/June 2003)

 

3.Q. From where do you know your sins and misery?

A. From the law of God.[1]

[1] Rom. 3: 20;

(Heidelberg Catechism)

 

"Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"

(Epitome of the Formula of Concord Article VI)

 

And

"…it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him." (2.7.6) "…to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice." (2.7.10) "For it is the best instrument for enabling the daily to learn…what that will of the Lord is…and to confirm them in this knowledge;" (2.7.12)

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion)

 

So we have three uses of the law:

1. (2 according to Calvin) As a restraint upon the actions of men, also called a "curb"

2. (1 according to Calvin) As a method of making man aware of his own sin, or a "mirror"

3. As a method for the Christian to know the desires of God and regulate their own life, or a "rule"

 

These are the reasons the Law was given. No one is free to do what he pleases, but neither does the Christian hold to the Law through fear of punishment. As Christians, our lives are to conform to the will of God because He enables us to do it in the first place – God changes us.

There are some pretty big implications here for what we see in the OT, as well as how we think about grace, so hold on, it's coming up!

 

Some links for further reading, including supporting verses:

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-lawandgospel.php

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law.

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V.%20Law%20and%20Gospel

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/heidelberg-cat-ext.txt or http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html

 

If it works, does it still need fixing?

Getting back into the swing of things here, I'm going to talk a little bit today about the idea of pragmatism in theology. Now, pragmatism in philosophy is something else, so don't confuse the two!

In a nutshell, pragmatism is the idea that as Christians, we have to do whatever it takes to get someone to accept Christ. Sounds good on the surface, right? A kind of giving-your-all?

Well, I've got a couple of problems with it:

First, it can promote a type of 'decision theology' that leads to synergism (see post from April 15 2010, Monergism and Synergism). Now, 'decision theology' in itself is a loaded phrase, so let me explain: I'm not saying that there is no place for a conscious decision to follow Christ, in a rational adult believer who has been intellectually convinced of the veracity of the Gospel. What I dispute is that the decision is an act of that individual's own will. For the man (gender neutral) in question, who makes such a decision, let's say because someone did a great job of apologetics, or without any proof at all based on straight out proclamation of the Gospel, the act of coming to faith is something that God does. God gives that man faith - the man doesn't decide on his own to have faith in God (Take a look at the post entitled 'Monergism and Synergism', from April 15 2010, for more explanation.) So when we make the emphasis that we do anything to get a man to make this decision, we have the focus off of the saving power of God. It's too easy to fall into the trap here of trying to convince the man, who can't believe without God.

Second, I see a problem with compromising the Gospel in order to reach this end. If a preacher can preach a sermon that an audience of Muslims or Jews don't get upset about, he hasn't preached the Gospel. Similarly, if your 'seeker service' isn't identifiably Christian, it's not a service. We weren't told to make the world comfortable, we were told to preach the Gospel.

Now, of course we have to do our best to make the Gospel relevant to the group we are talking to: Paul is our example for that. His method of approach was different in the Synagogues, different in Lystra, different at the Areopagus, and different before Festus or Agrippa. But he never failed to proclaim the Gospel in each case. (I'm indebted to someone for this observation, but I'm not sure where I heard it - if you know, please speak up!)

So, in short, we proclaim the Gospel to the lost and to the saved, because we were commanded to do so! We preach it to the lost because God commanded it, and because it's the power of salvation, and to the saved because God commanded it, and it is what we place our faith in (note in Romans 1 Paul's eagerness to preach to Gospel to the church in Rome, a group of believers!). Not to convince people, because that's God's work, be it through us or not. We need hardly 'do whatever it takes,' in the pragmatist sense, because God IS all that it takes.

Regarding preaching the Gospel, let me take this opportunity to recommend the book "Why Johnny Can't Preach" by T. David Gordon. I read this yesterday, and he makes some very pertinent points about both the nature and state of preaching. For every reader, and especially those in active ministry or preparing for it, this is a necessary observation - and I note that that which Gordon finds 'Johnny' lacking in was a PREREQUISITE for theological education, and should be the standard that every believer seeks to reattain.

A Quick Note

I'm just writing to note that I haven't given up on this blog. It's a busy time, so there's been quite a pause after the last post, but that doesn't mean I won't write again - it just may have to wait until this weekend!

Excursus: The Pope

This is not exactly the topic I had planned to write about, but it is appropriate to the events. Lately, there's been an awful lot going on about the pope. Well, he will have been pope for five years tomorrow, so I guess that's appropriate, too. But I'd like to interact with some things being said. A popular 'topic' over here is the list of controversies since he's been pope, and I don't see why a lot of them are (controversies, that is).

So here goes:

First, that it was such surprise, what he preached on as pope the first World Youth Day - about the church being inviting, and that Christianity changes lives, rather than what one may and may not do, or about sexual morality. "One would not expect this from such a defender of the faith" was said over this. What? I'm sorry, he preached the core of Christianity, instead of legalism, so good for him!

Second, his quote about Islam - though it might not be politically correct today, the God of Christianity is not that of the Muslims, and we don't have common ground. He could even have made it his own express opinion, without being untrue to his post. The world just doesn't like it.

Third, the statement about the Protestants. Well, in his opinion, any church that's not Roman Catholic can't by definition be a church. He didn't say we're not Christians. I even see it the other way around - that the Catholics are a church in error, and so not the true church, but just the same I don't say they're not Christians. The pope and I would agree to disagree here, and yet meet in Christian love.

Fourth, the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. What's the big deal about that? A Christian prays fervently for everyone, that they recognize Christ as the savior. Jews included. So it's not saying anything different than the entire message of Christianity! If you take issue with this prayer, you have to take issue with the entire faith.

Fifth, the Pius-Brothers and Robinson. I'm relatively sure that the reabsorption was a church government thing, and unconnected to Robinson's statements on the Holocaust. As he should, the pope leaves the judging of crime regarding denying the Holocaust to the secular government (who, rightly, found Robinson guilty and fined him).

Sixth, the sex-abuse scandal. The pope takes a lot of heat here in Germany for not making comments on the situation. I'm sorry, is it concluded? Have the police even charged people yet? Or are they still investigating? (Here's a clue - to my knowledge no one has been officially charged yet!). The pope can't comment on something still open like this. Once guilt is proven, sure - but on plain accusation? Anyone can accuse, and the pope won't comment until the truths of the accusations are known.

Lastly, the church-renewing movement, this idea to allow female and married priests. You're not going to change the faith unless you convince the leadership out of scripture, and for Catholics, tradition. I as a Protestant wouldn't want pure human opinion to change my church! So respect to the pope, that he's not a weak political creature, craving approval, that he would be moved by petitions and protests, but remains true to what he believes.

So let's stop judging Christians, all Christians, by worldly standards, and judge them by the standards of Christ. Even when I disagree with the pope on some, or many positions he holds, I'm glad that he defends what he thinks is right, and stands up for Christ.

Monergism and Synergism

Well, this is kind of a follow-up post to the last one. There's a need to explain some of what I was talking about, and give a defense for it, so here goes:

Monergism - the idea that man's salvation is 100% God's work.

Synergism - the idea that man works together with God for salvation.

Now, right off the bat, the question gets raised, "wait, that means synergism is a works salvation, right? That's like, completely against everything Christianity teaches!" And it's completely correct. Any belief that says we do something in our own salvation falls in this category.

Now, it gets a little stickier here: what about faith? When you believe, is it an action you chose to do? And if you are saved through faith, doesn't that mean that you cooperated in your own salvation by believing?

The answer, thankfully, is no. Biblically speaking, we don't possess the ability to choose God, that is, to have faith. God gives us faith. There was a monk at one point, named Pelagius, who taught that man could choose to have faith in God - he famously opposed Augustine on the subject (and, well, got burned for his heresy). That's why sometimes this gets called 'Pelagiansim.'

On the subject of faith again, if God gives us our faith, because we're too sinful to choose God on our own, where does that leave our free will? There's two answers to that question that are pretty at odds with one another, so we'll deal with that next.

One note here, the statement that we don't have the ability to choose God is a matter of salvation only. I'm not in any way saying that we don't have free will to, say, make a sandwich, but rather that we don't have the free will to overcome our own sin - that's why we need the truth that sets us free. So please don't hear me espousing determinism.

So in conclusion, if you're going to call yourself a Christian, you have to accept that God does all the work of salvation. This sounds basic now, but hold on to that thought as we go through the next few things that this doctrine has bearing on.

The God of Sola Fide

The doctrine of justification by faith may be taken as a 'given' for many protestant Christians. I used to be one of them. Sure, we all probably get taught the basics of what it means - that we can't earn our salvation.

Here's a quote from Martin Luther about it, from the Smalcald Articles: (English translation from the Lutheran Book of Concord. Article shortened by me.)

1] That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.

2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.

3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f

4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.

5] Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. .

(Quote's over now, in case you didn't catch that) Ok, so it's an important doctrine, right? Well, yes, but also it means a whole different way of looking at God. Sola Fide may not have been something new, but realizing its implications certainly was.

If we take the idea of monergism, that God does all the work, as true, all of a sudden you have every indication for God outside of scripture pointing directly here. No one argues that man isn't perfect. No one rational argues that man can become perfect. So if you look with your reason for a God, the only God you can find is the one who, if He has contact with man at all, initiates the contact and does all the work. "You can't be good enough on your own" isn't just scriptural, its logical.

Then, in a nutshell, when you go looking for a God who does all the work of initiating the relationship, the only one you find is Christ. The theological doctrine of Sola Fide unites what we believe to be true with that which we can logically grasp - because every other possibility outside of the God of Sola Fide, every possibility out there besides Christ, is logically indefensible.

And the best thing about it? We didn't find this God by our reason - He found us, and gave us faith. This isn't philosophy guiding theology, but rather philosophy pointing clearly at its own limit, and showing that the only answer lies in Christ.

This post raises a lot of questions, so here's a sneak peek at the title of what I'll be writing next: Why I reject synergism, and accept monergism.

Inaugural Post

Well, I guess I am actually blogging now (how insipid is that to write? Bäh). I've started this blog as a record of what I study, what I read, and what I think, so it's going to be mostly fitting to the title - theological thoughts. Occasionally there will be things on other topics.

I'll post mainly in English, since it's my native tongue, but from time to time posts may appear in German, or less often, other languages.

As for readers, I'll provide a translation to anyone who asks.