1

THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition

Class notes for Fall, 2010 – Spring, 2011 Compiled and arranged by Dr. Archie J. Spencer

© Do not Copy without permission

These notes are provided as a favor to students to help them follow the lectures and engage in discussion. They are a work in progress still needing some editing and correction. All suggestions for improvement and lists of errata welcomed. Hope you find them helpful nevertheless. They are required reading for the course.

2

THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition Session I

Toward a Working Definition of the Believers Church Tradition

Introductory Comments a) What do we mean by Believers Church Tradition - When I was first informed that I would be teaching a course called “Believers Church Theology” I was initially amused at the strange title. After some consideration, realizing that I myself stood in a “Believers Church Tradition” of sorts, I wondered what such a course would and should look like. You are probably wondering as well. What follows is an extended definition that draws on the history of theology, systematic theology and applied ecclesiology, which can be found, in various ways and shapes in the traditions represented here at ACTS.

- Such a course, however, will always be taught from the differing perspectives within the ACTS consortium, and, while I will do my level best to be comprehensive across these traditions, it is a given that my perspective will often reflect the Baptist tradition in which I now stand. I make no apologies for this, but do wish to encourage the class to engage in dialogue with myself and other colleagues, from their own perspectives. As you will see, depending on your ecclesial background, you may find this entity, which I shall refer to as the BCT, difficult to define, but nevertheless necessary to come to grips with. b) Defining Believers Church Theology (Tradition) - To some it would seem paradoxical to suggest that a “Believers Church Tradition” exists, but at the same time say that it is notoriously difficult to define. However, this is precisely the case. It is so for a number of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason, is its representation across many different denominations. Where those who hold to a similar tradition agree on the essentials, they often disagree on the lesser doctrines. Thus we will need to demonstrate considerable patience with one another as we discuss our various traditions.

- The second reason relates to the first in that all members of the Believers Church Tradition claim for themselves the name “Evangelical”, though not all who call themselves Evangelical would agree to being called a member of the Believers Church Tradition. On the face of it, the word Evangelical, taken from the Greek, euangellion, simply means the good news of the gospel. But agreement as to what is meant by the derivative word "evangelical" ends there. Bernard Ramm, 3

who stands in the Believers Church Tradition, was right to suggest, that “it is impossible to give one, neat, precise definition of an evangelical.” He suggests, correctly I think, that the place to begin in defining Evangelicalism, and therefore the Believers Church Tradition, is with the Vincentian rule (developed by Vincent of Lariens AD 450), which defines orthodoxy as “what has been believed everywhere (ecumenicity), always (antiquity), and by all (constancy).”(Ramm – Evangelical Heritage, p 13). “In the most general sense, evangelical Christianity, refers to that version of Christianity which places the priority of the Word and Act of God over the faith, response, or experiences of humanity.” (Ramm, p 13).

- Thirdly, the Believers Church Tradition is also difficult to define because of the lacuna in historical rooted-ness that is endemic among many Christians in the Believers Church Tradition. Some Evangelicals in the Believers Church Tradition have a good grasp of the history of their theological heritage, but most do not. As a result, theology in the Believers Church Tradition tends to be “ahistorical” in that its believers lack a “sense of the course of theological history which is their heritage.”

- Thus, while we will be working with a preliminary definition to get us started, we shall have to wait until late in the course to fully appreciate and claim a comprehensive understanding of the theology of the Believers Church Tradition. Ramm suggest that “an evangelical who holds an ahistorical faith has no real sense of the theological and spiritual continuity of his/her faith.”

I. The Believers Church Tradition is defined by its Emphasis on the Primacy (sole authority) of Scripture. a) The Centrality of the Scriptures – The Protestant Principle.

- The question of Scripture, for those in the Believers Church Tradition, is the question of the locus of religious and theological authority. Where can we locate God’s unequivocal voice? For those in the Believers Church Tradition, such authority cannot be located in the institutional church, human religious/philosophical systems or individual experience, but exclusively in the scriptures. According to the Westminster Confession the Protestant Principle states that God’s authority is to be identified with “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.” (WCF 1.x.) Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT hereafter) defines the principle of sola scriptura as follows: “The freedom of Scripture to rule as God’s Word in the Church, disentangled from the Catholic Pope, its ecclesiastical Magisterium (authoritative teaching office) and the Tradition. Scripture is the sole access to Christian revelation. Although tradition may aid its interpretation, its true (i.e. spiritual) meaning is its natural (i.e. literal-plain) sense, not an allegorical one.” (963)

4

- This aspect of the Believers Church Tradition is often abbreviated in our time to simply “the Bible”, without the Spirit or the spiritual aspect included, as it was for the Reformers. Fundamentalists, in their zeal to protect the authority of scripture from liberal encroachment, omitted the role of the Spirit in illumination, interpretation and application.

b) The New Testament bears witness to this Protestant Principle.

- That the Scriptures are inspired is well attested to by the Scriptures themselves, the locus classicus being II Timothy 3:16 and II Pet. 1:20-21, but including a host of other passages, which we shall consider later. However, Evangelical theologians often overlook the illuminating role of the Spirit emphasized in John 16:13f. We could also add the Luke/Acts emphasis on the illuminating power of the Spirit as well. By illumination we mean first the general enlightening of God’s being and action regarding the salvation we received through the incarnation of the Word, Jesus Christ, as witnessed to in the Scriptures. (Jn 1:9; Tim 1:10).

- Paul also laid great stress on the need to be open to the Spirit’s instruction especially in relation to the gift of prophecy. Cf. his writing on the Spiritual gifts in I Cor. 12-14. For Paul the litmus test of this gift is whether or not the Spirit confirms the prophet in the light of the Scripture, (I Cor.14). Indeed, the whole of the Scriptures themselves are a product of the Spirit’s inspiration. Here Bernard Ramm adopts the Reformation idea that the Spirit never contradicts himself; on the contrary, the Spirit seals the written word on the hearts and the mind of the reader. This was precisely what Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and other Old Testament texts foresaw as the role of the Spirit. (Jer. 31:31f; Deut. 6:9)

c) The Protestant Principle of Scripture is bequeathed to us by the Reformation.

- Contemporary evangelical theologians who stand in the Believers Church Tradition, like W. Grudem, B. Demarest, and D. Wells, all tend to reject the subjective aspect of revelation that comes with an emphasis on the Holy Spirit in favor of the objective meaning of the literal text.. This leads them to down-play the role of the Spirit in interpretation. But this stance is often taken in a desire to protect the erosion of Scriptural authority in the “subjective theology” of modernity.

- Thus, when theologians like Bernard Ramm seem to place the emphasis on the subjective aspect of the Spirit’s illumination, he is charged with “a shift toward a more ambiguous relationship between revelation and the words of Scripture.” (Erickson, The Evangelical Left, p. 78). 5

- For the Reformers, what made the Scriptures the Word of God was precisely the Spirit’s internal witness to its infallibility and authority. They saw the Scriptures as more than cognitive and/or informative propositions. It was more than just words on parchment. I would suggest that, only when our doctrine of Scripture is grounded in that tradition have we in the Believers Church Tradition been clear about our insistence on the authority and infallibility of Scripture as God’s word and act.

- Christians in the BCT hold such a high view of Scripture because for them it contains the words of salvation that require intellectual and spiritual assent. But this faith can only be achieved through the leading of the Holy Spirit. This leads us to the second defining feature of the BCT.

II. The Believers Church Tradition is defined by its Insistence on Individual Salvation, Achieved by Faith in the Finished Work of Christ Alone.

a) Salvation in the Believers Church Tradition

- The BCT affirms that our salvation was established only through Jesus Christ, in His life, atoning death, and resurrection, and that Christ’s work must be personally appropriated by faith alone, on the basis of Scripture alone. This is the one absolutely non-negotiable doctrine in our tradition. It under girds much of our ecclesial and missional efforts. We come to this knowledge of salvation as the Holy Spirit impresses upon our hearts and minds the truthfulness of the Gospel contained in the Scriptures. b) Jesus Christ is this Savior first and foremost by virtue of his Divinity.

- There is, in the Believers Church Tradition today, a tendency to focus primarily on the work of Christ to the exclusion of his person. But a perusal of our historical heritage suggests that the person of Christ, in terms of the two-natures doctrine, is crucial to our understanding of how personal salvation may be appropriated. Indeed, Ramm considered this Christological aspect of Evangelical theology and the BCT to be foundational to the whole enterprise. Ramm writes;

o “The evangelical does not believe that the decision to be Christocentric is arbitrary. According to Hebrews 1:1-3, Christ is God’s highest and final revelation. If that is true, then all revelation must be oriented around its supreme manifestation. The seven theses contained in Hebrews 1:1-3 about Christ identify him not only with revelation but also with creation, redemption, and consummation. Furthermore, Christocentrism is only possible because there has been an incarnation. He who was very God of very God became very man of very man existing 6

on this earth under human conditions as the one Lord Jesus Christ.” (Evangelical Heritage, 144)

c) Jesus Christ – very God, very man, very God/Man – is the sum and substance of revelation;

- In the BCT, Jesus Christ, as the God/Man, is the reality to which both Word and Spirit bear witness. Here again, the Believers Church Tradition will come up theologically short if, in its emphasis on the authority and inspiration of Scripture, it fails to do justice to the Lord they enshrine.

- Both revelation and salvation are necessarily Christocentric in the sense that Christ is the source and meaning of revelation and salvation. To quote Ramm again:

o “Christ is the supreme object of the witness of the Spirit, and Christ is the supreme content of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are inspired by the Spirit and they witness supremely to Christ, the personal Word of God. Such is the pattern of authority, and the three elements of it must be held in proper relationship. The fundamentalist fails to keep the person and work of Jesus Christ central.” (Pattern of Authority, 126)

- Thus, the work of Christ, in terms of his life, atoning death and resurrection, only have meaning when his deity and humanity are clearly understood and articulated according to the Scriptures. The written word has meaning only as a history of God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ who is God for man and man for God. d) Evangelical theology in the Believers Church Tradition wants to be Christocentric in its soteriology and soteriocentric in its Christology, with the Scriptures as the divine source of knowledge about both. - This claim to salvation in Christ will thus be exclusive and of universal significance for those of us in the Believers Church Tradition. Jesus, as the God/Man, is the center of God’s soteriological action and not just a reflection of God’s desire to save. He is the way, not just another way. - This is the distinguishing feature of Evangelical theology and the Believers Church Tradition in today’s world. And it is the principle that will forever prevent us from becoming pluralist in our theology and ministry. The uniqueness and exclusivity of Christ as savior is enshrined in the theology of the BCT. To abandon it is to become made over into the image of the regnant culture.

7

III. The Believers Church Tradition is also Defined by its Call to All Christians to be Engaged in the Nurturing Life of the Church

- It is a curious and encouraging fact of history that where the evangelical faith has been strongly affirmed theologically, there the life of the individual Christian and the church has been nurtured, has grown and become strong.

- This can be readily attested to in the Scriptures, especially the early church community, (Acts 2:42-47). There were four practices of the Church which made for a nurturing community, and that eclipsed the positive impact on human culture that any other volunteer society of its time can claim. Acts 2:42- 47 describes the church in embryo and though we cannot recapture the past, certain timeless principles illustrate why the Believers Church Tradition claims and tries to emulate the New Testament pattern for church. The four practices were as follows: a) Continuing in the apostles teaching.

- For the early church, as for the Fathers and Reformers, there could be no substitute for the Scriptures as imparted by the apostles. “Right doctrine” was crucial to the church in its earliest stage and this should be no different today. Acts 2:42 speak of the disciples “continuing in the apostles teaching”. (GK προσκαρτερουντες τη διδαχη των αποστολων). The verb for “continuing” can be translated as “steadfastly continued” or “to be continually in”. This word applies to all of the disciplines of the Christian life including prayer (Acts 1:14), fellowship and doctrine (TDNT III, p. 619). Διδαχη means simply the teachings that defined the community. b) The Believers Church Tradition also desires that the Church, as a defining feature of their faith, be engaged in Fellowship that functions.

- Again the key concept here is mutual nurturing of both individuals and the body through an intimate sharing of the Gospel in and through everyday life. Though the word “fellowship” is much abused today, to the point of almost being meaningless, the Greek world that stands behind it is crucial to the Believers Church Tradition. “Кοινωνια” is an extremely intimate term expressing community, communion, joint participation, and even intercourse. It is one of the key words that give us a sense of our own participation in the life of God through one another.

- Such fellowship allows for the mutual fruitfulness and giftedness of the body with a view to mutual edification (οικωδοµεω) -or “building up” which is the aim of fellowship. It is, according to Hauck, a “spiritual term for the fellowship of brotherly accord established and expressed in the life of the community.” (TDNT III. 809). What constitutes the community as a fellowshipping community is their mutual sharing in the life of Christ. 8

(c) As a defining feature of the Believers Church Tradition, the church is also held to be the place where worship happens in its most important sense.

- Here in Acts 2 this is expressed in terms of “the breaking of bread and in prayers and in praising God”. There can be no doubt from other New Testament texts and the Pauline literature that the Lord’s table formed the center of the church’s worship experience in its embryonic form. More than any other feature of the Early Church, it was a defining feature in relation to the rest of society. It was eucharistic in terms of “thanksgiving”, and issued in praise, adoration and in the proclamation (kerygma) of the good news.

- Such thanksgiving was always accompanied, in this worship context, by prayer προσευχας and praise of God (αινουντες τον θεον). If worship is a defining feature of the Believers Church Tradition’s emphasis on the place of the Church, then how we form and shape our theology of worship will have tremendous significance in our current context, where worship is one of the most debated items, in terms of form and content for the Believers Church Tradition today.

d) The church, as the defining feature of the Believers Church Tradition in terms of its emphasis, is also the body, gifted and active, in serving that sacrifices.

- Acts 2:42-47 is a description of a body engaged in sacrificial service. This category, however, needs to be seen as a major defining theme within the Believers Church Tradition itself and so we turn now to this fourth defining feature.

IV. The Believers Church Tradition is defined by its distinctive emphasis on mission, evangelism and ministry as the reason for the church’s existence.

a) Biblically, the locus classicus is of course, Matt. 28:18-20

- In this famous passage Jesus lays before his disciples the challenge to be a mission body whose goal is to “preach the Gospel”, “make disciples” and “baptize them” into fellowship.

- Believers Church history is a history marked by revivalism, missions work, fervent evangelism, and active pastoral ministry among the flock. These theological and practical emphases have made the Believers Church Tradition the fastest growing and most active ecclesial entity in North America and much of the world today.

9 b) Mission, evangelism and ministry is our appointed task in between the “now and not yet” of the Kingdom of God.

- The Lordship of Christ over all creation was established through His advent, but it will not be a completed reality until every creature acknowledges him as Lord. The church is, in the Believers Church Tradition, the chief instrument in bringing about this universal acknowledgement. c) The problem was and still is; how can the church proceed to announce the Kingdom of God in a culture that rejects it?

- Should the church separate from the world and make its announcement in negative terms, or should it accommodate as much as possible so as to gain a sympathetic ear? Perhaps it should be militant and counter modern culture with an alternative culture. Or perhaps the Believers Church Tradition should engage in the transformation of culture through transformed lives and communities of faith.

- No matter what the method, however, the mandate of the Believers Church Tradition to engage in mission, evangelism and ministry remains a constant purpose for the church. Our discussion of the theology underlying these efforts will leave the mandate intact but ask important questions as to method. In our present experience, the Believers Church Tradition has often lost the mandate either for lack of method or because the method overtook the mandate. The call to balance will be crucial as we see our way forward in terms of the church’s call to mission, evangelism and ministry.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can now offer a basic working definition of the theology of the Believers Church Tradition that will guide our discussion from here on in. Regardless of what this aggregation of Protestant Churches believe about other issues, these four emphases define them as part of the Believers Church Tradition.

This course will be designed around these four theological themes. To be sure, we will take up the Believers Church Tradition’s attitude towards other theological themes such as God, Christ and eschatology, from time to time. However, our task will be to help those of us in the Believers Church Tradition come to a greater appreciation for and understanding of our theological heritage and tradition.

A working definition.

“The Believers Church Tradition is that group of Protestant Christians who give absolute priority to the inspiration and authority of scripture, the need for personal faith in the saving work of Christ, the call to be committed to personal maturity and the community of faith in terms of teaching, fellowship, and worship with the mandate to be engaged in mission, evangelism, and ministry, for the sake of the kingdom of God.” 10

Believers Church Tradition Postscript to Session I

If the Believers Church Tradition has a prophetic theologian in its history, it would have to be Bernard Ramm. His book, entitled The Evangelistic Heritage, continues to be a timeless classic in terms of where the evangelical movement (and thus the Believers Church Tradition) has come from and where it appears to be headed. In his opening chapter he affirms, “evangelical theology belongs to the Christian west.” Ramm already anticipates much of the discussion now engaged in Believers Church Tradition and evangelicals. They include the nature of Biblical authority, the question of the foundations of theology, the role of culture and the place of tradition-history in the evangelical theology of the Believers Church Tradition For me, the questions of scriptural authority, the cultural mandate, foundations, etc. must be answered in the light of the current “ahistorical” attitude towards theological tradition in the theology of the Believers Church Tradition. I chose to call this course the “The Theology of the Believers Church Tradition” with the distinction being in the word “tradition”. My goal in this course is to make a small contribution to the reversal of what Ramm calls “ahistoricism” in evangelism. Ramm is right to see this reading of theology without regard to its historical heritage as a weakness in Evangelicalism that leads to superficial understanding. I am aided here by a recent work that intends to read the Believers Church Tradition as precisely that, “a tradition”. D. H. Williams’s, Retrieving The Tradition And Renewing Evangelicalism is a tour de force argument that we have, unconsciously or consciously, been engaging in a theology that assumes a tradition that goes back, not just to the Reformation but also through the middle ages and into the patristic and New Testament era. Our downfall has been our failure to retrieve this tradition for theology either because of our suspicion of tradition or because of our neglect of it. In a similar manner to Ramm, Williams charges the Believers Church Tradition with “theological amnesia”. He says, “the real problem with amnesia, of course, is that not only does the patient forget his loved ones and friends, but he no longer remembers who he is.” Much of what passes for ministry and theology in the Believers Church Tradition today fails to receive, preserve and carefully transmit its tradition to the next generation of believers. History, and its theology, has become irrelevant. He levels a stinging indictment against North American Evangelicalism in which he offers an analysis as to why this amnesia has occurred. He writes: “New trends for church growth or the establishment of “seeker sensitive” settings have replaced the church’s corporate memory for directing ecclesial policies and theological education. Pragmatics in ministry threaten to swallow the necessity for theology and marginalize the craft of “reflective understanding” about God which ought to have its primary place in the Church. While pastors have become more efficient administrators and keepers of the institution, along with being excellent performers, they are 11

losing their ability to act as able interpreters of the historic faith. Likewise, biblical exegesis is too often guided by no other authority than the marketplace of ideas and the social and emotional agenda of the congregation. Interpretation of the text is far more indebted to the latest trends in interpersonal dynamics, effective communication style, or popular pastoral psychology. And all the while, the issue of determining Christian identity has lost its way in the midst of emotionally charged and professionally orchestrated worship. It is not that Christians are purposely ignoring Paul’s final words to Timothy, “Preserve the pattern of sound teaching … guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you.” It is that they are no longer sure what this “deposit” consists of, or where it can be found.”(p. 10)

This widespread “evangelical amnesia” has also come about because of a deep-seated suspicion of history and tradition. This, combined with our penchant for cultural faddism, has impoverished the church and stolen its tradition. As a result, the evangelical movement and much of the Believers Church Tradition, is moving into the future without a firm connection to the past. Modernity has equipped us so well with a suspicion of tradition that it has robbed us of our ability to keep safe and carefully pass on the “deposit” entrusted to us. If however, our aim here at Acts is to be doctrinally orthodox and exegetically faithful to scripture, “it cannot be accomplished without recourse to and integrations of the foundational tradition of the early church.”(Ibid.) Indeed, I am in total agreement with Williams that “to make any claim for orthodox Christianity means that evangelical faith must go beyond itself to the formative eras of that faith, apostolic and patristic, which are themselves the joint anchor of responsible biblical interpretation, theological imagination and spiritual growth.” The church is both apostolic and patristic in terms of its theological tradition. This must be said about all the core doctrines of Revelation, Canon, Salvation, God, Trinity, Christ and Church. None of these doctrines have come down to us without careful formation and articulation by the Fathers who faithfully interpreted the text of Scripture. So, when we come to anchor our doctrines of Scripture, Salvation, Church and Ministry in the heritage of the Reformation we must remember that “the guiding inspiration of the Protestant Reformation was fueled by a need to rediscover the Christian past.” Certainly, this must be said of Luther and Calvin, both of whom drew their theological impetus from Augustine and the Fathers of the Western tradition. All of us are “Traditional” to the degree that we claim a historical reference point for our faith other than the Bible. While some may eschew the word, “tradition”, in their desire to avoid, rightly I think, “traditionalism”, nevertheless none of us can escape being part of a tradition because it is a natural part of being human. It is, furthermore, a biblical command that we preserve and hand down the teaching we have received from the Scriptures. Paul tells us to “stand firm and hold on to the traditions we passed on to you.” (II Thess. 2:15) Paul understood this to be an active and living process, not a dead one. Tradition is as much a verb (tradere) as it is a noun. In the final analysis, says Williams, 12

“the tradition denotes the acceptance and handing over of God’s word, Jesus Christ (tradere Christum), and how this took concrete forms in the apostolic teaching (kerygma), in the Christ centered reading of the Old Testament, in the celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and in the doxological, doctrinal, hymnological and creedal forms by which the declaration of the mystery of God incarnate was revealed for our salvation. In both act and substance the tradition represents a living history which, throughout the earliest centuries, was constituted by the church and also constituted what was the true church.” Such tradition is implicit in most doctrinal systems of the Believers Church Tradition even if the historic expressions of it are openly rejected or marginalized. While the Believers Church Tradition may rarely mention the creeds or the Fathers, the essential doctrines of its individual ‘traditions’ “are still somewhat dependent upon the body of the churches traditions in its best creeds, confessions and theologians.” This is why it is appropriate to refer to the Believers Church Tradition as indeed a theological and ecclesial tradition. What needs to be kept in mind is that the tradition is only useful where it is a faithful interpretation of the text of Scripture out of which it grew and upon which it depends.

13

Session II THS 571

Theology of the Believers Church Tradition

Biblical Themes

Introductory Comments:

- The most important claim of the Believers Church Tradition is its claim to Scriptural authority in its doctrinal emphasis. We in the Believers Church Tradition take seriously the biblical call to be faithful to the text of scripture in speaking about our theology. The themes of scriptural authority, salvation, church and ministry are to be seen in their biblical context, old and new, and worked out in the life the church from there.

- The tendency in the Believers Church Tradition has been to focus on the New Testament in the development of its theology. But, as with our own theological tradition, which cannot be read without reference to the past, so the New Testament cannot be properly understood without reference to the Old Testament tradition from which it stems. Three major Old Testament concepts, which run throughout the 66 books are crucial backdrops to the themes that emerge in the New Testament. They are creation, covenant, and consummation.

I. The OT Witness to the BCT a) Creation- From the outset, the sovereignty and freedom of God are determined by His Creation through Divine Fait.

- The Scriptures tell us that in the beginning God spoke and creation came into being. The avenue of speech is thereby immediately established as God’s primary way of God’s relating to creation: Gen. 1:1 functions not only as a title for the book itself, but also for the whole of the Bible. The tone of the opening verses is at once lofty and theological. The object is to give an account of the divine origins of creation (Heb- barah) itself in its totality. The text demands an interpretation of absolute beginnings. “Genesis 1 stresses the sovereignty of God exhibited in His effortless superintendence of the work of creation. He stands outside of the historical process, and all within it is under His total control.” (Dumbrell, Creation and Covenant, p5.)

- God’s sovereign act of creation also demonstrates his power. As the Psalmist puts it “the heavens declare the glory of God – Ps. 19:1. But God’s power in creation is directed towards a “good” end. What God has created, He has created by His 14

own power and what He has created is under His sovereign rule. As such “it is tob(v)” – or good.

- Gen. 2:1-4a contains the conclusion of creation in the proclamation of rest on the seventh day. “Therein God declares His work complete and, by implication, invites human beings to enter into the special situation of rest on the Sabbath.” Humanity is given the task of dominion over the world, but we can do so effectively, except in relationship to God. This relational unity in the Garden is the center of God’s creative activity and the place from which both humanity and God are known.

- But, the story of creation ends in the tragic fall of humanity in Genesis 3: The order of creation is reversed through the fall of Adam and Eve, and the relationship with and knowledge of God is all but lost. The effects of the fall are traced in the rest of scripture in grizzly detail. Now, creation, from a human standpoint, is disordered and problematic. Death has the upper hand. Prior to Gen. 6:18, the only hope offered to humanity for a reversal of the effects of the fall is the promise of a child that will crush the head of the Serpent. (Gen. 3:15)

- Thus, the story of creation is one in which the power, sovereignty and goodness of God are demonstrated while the weakness, impotence and dependence of humanity is underscored. William Dumbrell suggests that in Gen. 1:1-2:4a the substance of the covenant is clearly a commitment implicit in the total creation account “… It is through man that the divine purpose will be realized. Man is set over creation, yet his future cannot be considered separately from the world over which he is set. The refusal of the creator to permit the divine purposes to be frustrated, either in regard to man himself or his world, must necessarily therefore, have redemptive consequences which will concern not only man, but finally his world as well.”

b) Covenant – The realization of the promise anticipated

- If there is a scarlet thread of redemption in the Scriptures, and it begins with Gen. 3:15, then its name must be covenant. No other Biblical concept carries with it the comprehensive idea of redemption so effectively and with so much recumbent force. The first instance, though more primitive in form, comes in Gen. 6:18 where God says to Noah, “but I will establish my covenant with you.” The verb, “establish” is written in the future tense but with immediate implications for Noah and his family. The word ‘berît’ has traditionally been translated as ‘covenant’ but its meaning cannot be fully grasped in a single English word. It can mean ‘mutual agreement’, ‘unilateral commitment’, ‘solemn obligation’ or ‘promise’. Whatever words we choose to use to translate it into English, it has long been established by Old Testament scholars (especially G. Mendenhall) that the covenants in the Old Testament are always initiated by God, and the human 15

partner is a lesser party in terms of the obligations imposed on the members of the treaty. The Ancient Near Eastern concept of covenant is used by God to indicate to humanity that it is his desire to bring us back into relationship, and he is willing to take responsibility for this on Himself.

- The Noahatic covenant mentioned earlier sets the pattern for these covenantal relationships in terms of Noah’s status as a representative for all humanity. The covenant referred to in Gen. 6:18 is designed to provide for the future of the human race and is therefore universal in its scope. It bespeaks the providential care of God over humanity. “Such a concept of covenant”, says Dumbrell, “does not therefore take into account particular historical circumstances under which it may have arisen (i.e. the flood). It is clearly not contingent upon human reaction to it nor even dependent upon human knowledge of it.” (Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 27)

- The fact of creation itself is already grounds for God’s gracious decision to be for humanity (pro nobis) in the establishment of his covenant. If God initiates the relationship, then the text assumes in dogmatic fashion that He will fulfill His purpose. God’s creation is good, (Gen. 1:31) and man’s sin (3:2), cannot frustrate His intentions for creation; that is to bring it to rest in the fullness of relationship with God Himself. The covenants with Abraham at Sinai, with David, with Jeremiah, and with us in Christ are, in the final analysis, the one covenantal desire of God to save us from sin and ourselves. As William Dumbrell notes, “there can only be one divine covenant, and that begins with Gen. 1:1. All else in covenantal theology which progressively occurs in the Old Testament will be deducible from this basic relationship, (Ibid)” including Abraham, Sinai, David and Jeremiah. All of these covenants find their ultimate form in God’s incarnation of the covenant in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the covenant. This quite naturally leads us to the concept of the consummation of the covenant prophesied in the Old Testament, and awaiting final fulfillment in Jesus Christ. c) Consummation- One of the most distinctive features of the Believers Church Tradition has been its emphasis on the fulfillment of all things in Christ at the eschaton.

- Indeed behind the emphasis on salvation, church and ministry has been the sense of urgency regarding the imminent return of Jesus Christ on the ‘day of judgment’ or ‘the day of the Lord’. In the Old Testament the end of time carried with it two expectations for the covenant community. 1. The judgment ‘day of the Lord’, and 2. The ‘Messianic hope.’ Despite the seemingly overwhelming emphasis on the day of the Lord as a day of judgment, it is in fact also a day of deliverance for the covenant community par excellence.

- It is not a question of when, but what kind of day it will be. The answer is equally uncomplicated. It will be a day when “God is clearly in charge.” “While Israel confessed God’s sovereignty generally, the day of Yahweh was a time in which 16

it would be obvious to all that God had come on the scene, that he had intervened.” (E. Martens God’s Design) God is often viewed in the Scriptures as coming demonstrably on the scene as the birth narratives of Jesus make clear. He does so again in the person of the Spirit, signaling the beginning of the last days by the pouring out of His Spirit, as Joel foretold. (Acts 2:6) In the New Testament there is no question but that the day of the Lord is the day in which all things come under the lordship of Christ, creation is set right, humanity and the fallen angels are judged, and the final state of rest is established eternally for the blessed. d) Messianic Expectations in relation to Creation Covenant and Consummation:

- The Messianic expectation that runs throughout the Old Testament is often read in conjunction with this consummation of creation on the day of the Lord. Indeed, in Israel’s history to speak of deliverance was to speak of the Messiah. The Messianic figure in the Old Testament had as his chief task the realization of deliverance for the people of Israel from oppression. Salvation from enemy powers is a constant theme in Israel’s history, be they natural, supernatural or human. The ultimate image of deliverance is the exodus, with Moses serving as a type of Messiah.

- Once settled in the promise land, judges and kings were seen as God’s regents and protectors from the threats to Israel’s existence. Peace, security and rest were the aims and tasks of such figures. The prospect of an age characterized by an absence of threat and conflict and by conditions of security and prosperity is older than the time of the judges. Indeed, such blessing comes with the destruction of evil hinted at in Gen. 3:15. In Israel’s history the coming good age is linked from the beginning with a person who is responsible for the restoration. Cf. Gen. 49:10, Num. 24:17-18. One could follow the career of this divine deliverer in such passages as Dan. 9:26; Ps. 2; Is. 45:1. In II Sam. 7:8-16, the covenant with David holds out the hope of an age in which Israel will not be disturbed and in which the wicked will no more afflict them as before.

- In the prophetic literature this Messianic expectation, (i.e. the ruler-ship of an ideal king who will once for all establish peace, security and rest in the promise land), is heightened and given more definite shape in terms of prediction. The Isaiah-anic passages are well known, especially the birth prophecy of Is. 7:14 and the servant songs that form the core of Isaiah 40-55. We can say 3 definite things about the messiah in Isaiah that relates directly to our Believers Church Tradition. 1) This Messiah will be a totalizing deliverer. 2) This Ruler will be righteous above all human righteousness. 3) His rule will result in eternal salvation and rest for the people of God. Elmer Martens aptly summarizes this tradition stating: “Christians confess that in Jesus Christ the day of Yahweh has dawned and the expected Messiah has come. He will some day totally fulfill the expectations of the historians, poets and prophets. He delivers man now, and 17

will eternally deliver the world from the power of evil. He is righteous, and will establish righteousness on the earth. In the coming of Jesus, there has come, and will come, a new age. The Kingdom of God is here now, and will some day come in its eternity.” (God’s Design, p. 139)

II. Gospel Themes – The Person of Jesus Christ in the Believers Church Tradition

- Many different Christian traditions have tended to read the New Testament Gospels from their own point of view. What distinguishes the Believers Church Tradition from those other traditions is our claim that we allow the Gospels to speak for themselves and that, when they do, the Old Testament themes which conceal God’s self-revelation as Creator, Covenant Maker and Consummator, become revealed in Jesus Christ who is Creator, Covenant Maker, and Consummator. a) Jesus Christ as Creator

- While there are hints at Jesus’ role as Creator in the synoptic Gospels in terms of his power over evil, demons and created order in general, i.e. miracles, etc, the most extravagant claims come in John’s Gospel, especially John 1:1-18. The very opening phrase “In the beginning” is a claim by the apostle John that Jesus Christ the “Word” (λογος) “is the sole agent of God in creation”, (B. Lindars, Commentary on Jn. 77). He is, in this role, also the revealer (reconciler) and redeemer (consummator). Just as God brought creation into being through His word in Gen. 1:1, here now, Jesus is described as being the very essence of that Word. “John is asserting that the ‘Word’ is the source of all that is visible and antedates the totality of the material world.” (Tenny, Expositors Bible Commentary, John, p. 28) But, the Word is now ushering in a “new creation” that accomplishes and finalizes the plans of the old creation of Gen. 1:1.

- “The Word, as the agent of creation, was with God and the Word “was” (ήν) God. This is most naturally understood as the eternal existence of the Word.” (L. Morris, Comm. on Jn. 73) The verb applies to a being whose eternal state is unchanging. He was neither created nor did He come into being, rather He simply and profoundly ‘was’.

- Why is John at pains to make this clear? Because, when in vs. 14 he declares that “the Word became flesh” he wants to assure his readers that this salvation, about which he will be speaking, is grounded in the absolute divine action of God, expressed in his divine Son. For John, as for us, there must be no question that our deliverance from “darkness” into “light” was accomplished through God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. “No one has seen God at any time but the only unique one from the Father, He has made Him known to us.” (1:18) This is why, in the Believers Church Tradition we will soon take up in detail, Jesus divinity 18

is the absolute ground of His work as Savior, otherwise there can be no salvation.

b) Thus, Jesus is also the Covenant Maker

- Interestingly, the place to turn in the gospels for a description of Jesus as the Covenant Maker is not to John, as one would expect, but to the synoptic Gospels. That is not to suggest that the new covenant is absent in John’s gospel, rather, it is assumed by John as an unspoken reality affirmed in the cross and resurrection. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Lord’s Supper is explicitly mentioned as the place where Jesus declares Himself to be the means and maker of the New Covenant; (Matt. 26:17-35; Mk. 14:12-30; Lk. 22:7-20). From the very start the covenant is understood as a communal event with individual ramifications. In this Passover meal, Jesus is making links with redemptive history. (D. A. Carson, Expositors Bible Commentary, Matthew, p. 537).

- This means, says Carson, that “Jesus understands the violent and sacrificial death He is about to undergo as a ratification of the covenant He is inaugurating with His people even as Moses in Exodus 24:8 ratified the covenant at Sinai by the shedding of blood.” (Carson, Ibid, 537) Covenant is thus the crucial category here, in that “the event through which the Messiah saves his people from their sins is his sacrificial death; and the resulting relationship between God and the Messianic community is definable in terms of covenant, an agreement with stipulations” – blessings for belief and cursing for unbelief.

- Luke, (and later Paul), use the adjective “new” before the term “covenant” thus tying the covenant of Jesus in with the promise of Jeremiah (31:31-34). Carson’s conclusion in this regard is important for our own understanding in the Believers Church Tradition. He writes: “It appears, then, that Jesus understands the covenant He is introducing to be the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies and the antitype of the Sinai covenant. His sacrifice is thus foretold both in redemptive history and in the prophetic word. The Exodus becomes a type of new and greater deliverance and as the people of God in the Old Testament prospectively celebrated in the first Passover, their escape from Egypt, anticipating their arrival in the Promised Land, so the people of God here prospectively celebrate their deliverance (individually and corporately) from bondage, anticipating the coming Kingdom.” (vs. 27-29) (Ibid, p. 538) c) Jesus the Consummator: 19

- Again the evidence for the understanding of Jesus as consummator in the gospels is massive. From the very outset in Mark, Jesus is seen as the one who brings the Kingdom of God with the call to “repent – come follow me”. (Mk. 1:14-16) Matthew’s gospel understands Him to be the Messiah who brings the Kingdom of Heaven, throughout it pages. Such a designation, as we have seen, already assumes His role as the final deliverer on the ‘day of the Lord.’ Nowhere in all four gospels is this made clearer than in their unified emphasis on the passion and resurrection of Jesus the Lord. All four gospels see the death and resurrection of Christ as the climax of the gospel story and of history. The resurrection in particular is the express instance of the arrival of the Kingdom of God.

- Jesus, as Creator, Covenant maker and Consummator comes as a result of His free decision to be so. Jesus the Covenant Maker determines the terms and conditions of His covenant with us, and no secular or religious authority can usurp it. As George Eldon Ladd puts it, “the Gospel of the Kingdom is the announcement of what God has done and will do. It is His victory over His enemies. It is the good news that Christ is coming again to destroy forever His enemies. It is a Gospel of hope. It is also the good news of what God has already done. He has already broken the power of death, defeated Satan, and overthrown the rule of sin. The Gospel is one of promise but also of experience, and the promise is grounded in the experience. What Christ has done guarantees what He will do.” (G. E. Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 132). A little further on Ladd adds a note of finality to this Gospel portrait of Jesus, stating:

“The ultimate meaning of history must be found in the action of God in history as recorded and interpreted in inspired Scripture. Here, the Christian faith must speak. If there is no God, man is lost in a labyrinthine maze of bewildering experiences with no thread of meaning to guide him. If God has not acted in history, the ebb and flow of the tides of centuries wash back and forth aimlessly between the sands of eternity. But, the basic fact in the word of God is that God has spoken, God has been redemptively at work in history; and the divine action will yet bring history to a divinely destined goal.”(Ibid, 132)

III. Pauline Themes – Paul’s Damascus Road Experience as Prototype

- As we continue our brief jaunt through the New Testament let us stop to consider for a few moments the most important theologian and apostle of the New Testament; Paul.

a) The Damascus Road as a Key to Conversion in the Believers Church Tradition (Acts 9:3f)

- J. S. Stewart once quipped that Paul’s conversion experience “was far and away the most vital and formative influence on Paul’s life”, (Man in Christ, 82). Like 20

the first disciples, who began from their Easter experience and whose thought both recollects and anticipates that historical and existential occasion, Paul looked back on his former hopes and the ministry of Jesus in the light of his Christ- encounter. For him the promised Messiah had become the present Messiah on the Damascus Road. “D-day had arrived with its fresh promise of V-Day”. (O Cullman, Christ and Time, 84-85) The vital element of Paul’s conversion was the clarity that Christ’s self-revelation shed on his own, and his Jewish peoples’ experience. “With astonishing suddenness, the persecutor of the Church became the apostle of Jesus Christ.” (F. F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 74) Bruce tells us that “he was in mid course as a zealot for the law, bent on checking a plague which threatened the life of Israel, when, in his own words, he was apprehended by Christ Jesus.” (Ibid, Phil. 3:12) He was immediately turned around and eventually became a champion for the church he sought to destroy.

- What appeals to us about this conversion experience is the shear change of direction in Paul’s life. This has been the experience of many in the Believers Church Tradition and it is one of the chief biblical reasons why we stress salvation by faith through personal conversion. When it comes time in Romans for Paul to give a theological account of this landmark event in his life, he will return to his legal thought patterns but invert them so that the law of Christ can be expressed as shear grace. b) Paul’s Understanding of Creation and Fall in the Believers Church Tradition

- When Paul does finally sit down to write what is probably the most important book of the Bible for the Believers Church Tradition, namely Romans, it is no surprise that he begins in the same place as John’s gospel, with creation.

- But Paul’s approach to creation is in terms of a characterization of the situation after the Fall. Romans Ch’s 1:18-3:20 can be summarized as an indictment against all humanity, as sinful and out of relationship with God. Neither gentiles (Ch. 1), nor Jews (Ch. 2), nor the rest of humanity (3:23) can escape the inevitable consequences of Adam’s sin. All are guilty and “fall short of the glory of God.”

- Paul’s argument is essentially that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only means to salvation. Nothing in created order, even our so-called natural knowledge of God, can bring us to the righteous condition that God requires of those who relate to him. “The first proof or confirmation which he addresses is the fact that, although the structure of the world and the most splendid ordering of the elements ought to have induced man to glorify God, yet there are none who do.” (Calvin, Comm. on Rom.30) All are guilty. Paul’s object in the book of Romans, says Calvin, is to “instruct us where salvation is to be sought.”

- Paul has stated already that it can only come by the Gospel (1:16-17) but, “because the flesh will not willingly humble itself to the point of ascribing the 21

praise of salvation to the grace of God alone, Paul shows that the whole world is guilty of eternal death. It follows that we must recover life by some other means, since in ourselves we are lost.” (Calvin, 32) Our knowledge of God from creation only prevents us from making excuses. This differs greatly from the knowledge of God that brings salvation. Only Christ can bring us to a saving knowledge of God. Our knowledge of God is one of degree only. Our “senseless heart” and “darkened mind” prevented any real and full saving knowledge of God. As Calvin says, “this was their unrighteousness, that the seed of true knowledge was immediately choked by their wickedness before it grew to maturity.” Paul’s cosmology, from this point on, is almost entirely eschatological. He speaks of the “new creation in Christ” and the new reality to be ushered in with the return of Christ. At this point, creation serves as a poignant reminder of our fallen condition. c) Paul’s understanding of the covenant.

- Paul’s understanding of the Gospel as “righteousness from God in Jesus Christ”, which we have by imputation, is a direct product of his Jewish covenantal heritage. In fact, when he is finished establishing the reality of our salvation as a declarative act of God on the basis of our faith in the finished work of Christ, he then proceeds to illustrate this in Romans 4 with an appeal to Abraham.

- The whole force of the argument in Romans 4 is to indicate that where once the seed of Abraham referred to the people of Israel, now in the light of the righteousness of Christ, we are heirs of the covenant. And we are precisely so on the same basis that Abraham was, that is by faith. While Abraham’s inclusion in the people of God was on the basis of his faith in the promise, (Gen. 15:6) now ours is on the basis of the realization of that promise in Jesus Christ. Paul now fully realizes that this extension of Abraham’s seed to the gentiles was already present in the call of Abraham in Gen. 12, and the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15.

c) Paul’s understanding of consummation

- Resurrection must be understood as the central Pauline doctrine in the NT. For him the consummation of creation was the event of the resurrection. He dedicated one whole chapter to the theme in I Cor. 15. In our times I Cor. 15 is seen as the center of his eschatology. New creation in Christ is the goal of eschatology and the process has already begun in the power of the Spirit. So ingrained was this theology of the resurrection that Paul could claim, “for me, to live is Christ, to die is gain”.

22

IV. New Testament Themes: The Church as God’s Chosen People in Believers Church Tradition a) Establishment of the people of God. Acts 1-2 (1:8 – Pentecost)

- It is clear from the very last words of Jesus that the Apostles were his chosen vessels for the furtherance of the Gospel on earth until his return. It is also clear that this task was not the sole possession of the Apostles but was carried out purely in the power of the Holy Spirit who was the agent of redemption through the church’s proclamation of this Gospel. But it is equally clear that this ministry did not reside in apostolic authority alone. The Spirit came upon all that were in the upper room and thus empowered at least 120 for ministry of various kinds in the life of the Church. b) Election and the people of Israel – Romans 9, 10, 11

- Given the Jewish rooted-ness of the first Church it was not surprising that they thought of themselves as the chosen people through whom God would establish his Kingdom. Paul formulated this concept of election into an ecclesiology wherein he linked the life of the Church to the chosen seed of Abraham in Romans 4 and spoke of our being grafted into the life of Israel as a “new Israel” and the true chosen, “spiritual seed” of Abraham. c) Gifting of God’s people

- God, by his Holy Spirit, has given the Church gifts of edification, Rom. 12:3-8; Gifts of power, I Cor. 12-14; Gifts of equipping, Eph. 4:11-16 for the building up of the body.

Conclusion:

Three concepts mark the grand sweep of biblical revelation, for the sake of salvation. They are Creation, Covenant and Consummation. The Church proceeds out of this threefold reality and has its life in it, just as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as Creator (Father), Covenant maker (Son) and Consumator (Holy Spirit) have community within God’s own inner life.

23

Session III THS 571 Theology of the Believers Church Tradition:

Early Church Themes

“Every place and every time in which we entertain the idea of God is in reality sacred”- Clement of Alexandria

Introductory Comments:

- The Believers Church Tradition has always claimed to be rooted in the New Testament. But also in the sub-apostolic/apostolic witness of the first 4 centuries. Thus we also need to ground our themes in the Early Church Fathers.

- Who are the “Church Fathers”? The idea of a Father of the faith is a rich and valuable concept in both the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. Paul described himself as a Father to the Church at Corinth in I Cor. 4:15. In Classical and Rabbinic tradition it was a common designation for those more mature members of a given society who had the task of faithfully handing down the tradition of the forefathers. So, to use Christopher Hall’s definition; “A father of the faith, then, is someone who is familiar with the teachings concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and can be trusted to hand on faithfully and correctly the tradition that he himself has already received.” (Learning Theology With the Church Fathers, 19)

- The amount of material available from the Church Fathers is vast and defies a coherent exposition. I have chosen to focus on those who raised the profile of Believers Church Tradition themes. There is today a call to return to the Church Fathers in order to ascertain aspects of the tradition that would help us articulate our faith anew. (See especially the work of Thomas Oden and Christopher Hall, Ancient Christian Commentary – IVP; See Halls two books, Learning the Scriptures With the Church Fathers and Learning Theology With the Church Fathers from IVP).

I. Believers Church Themes in the Greek East

- Note: The Greek East is comprised of those early Christian writers who wrote in Greek, were generally either south-east or east of Antioch, such as Alexandria, Jerusalem or Damascus, and who followed the Alexandrian form of Christian theology which developed there, under such leaders as Clement of Alexandria, St. Anthony and especially Origen of Alexandria. They also included many other figures up to and including Gregory of Palamis. It was there that the Arian controversy broke out – Arius claimed that Jesus was created, so Christology was of central concern to them. So 24

also was the importance of Scripture, its allegorical interpretation and the apostolic rule of faith.

Three theologians and their doctrinal developments were important for the BCT during the 1st to 3rd centuries in the Greek East.

a) One of the earliest theologians was Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.)

- He was born to a pagan family at Athens and trained in Greek philosophy. He became a disciple of a Sicilian Christian, Pantaenus, who had a school of discipleship in Alexandria, (ca 180.). Clement was well educated in all spheres of academic endeavor but he was known for his vast knowledge of the Rule of Faith and the Hebrew scriptures.

- In one way he was the first one to insist that all branches of knowledge must be employed by theology. His Exhortation to the Greeks is an evangelistic tract aimed at the conversion of intellectual pagans through the use of all the academic disciplines of his day. Therein, his emphasis is on the superiority of the prophetic tradition of the Scriptures, over against the pagan cultures, and this leads him to the conclusion that only the Scriptures contain ultimate truth and are therefore trustworthy in every way. However one could still gain truth from the works of great thinkers like Plato.

- Yet, in his book on ethics and allegorical truth, called simply Paiedagogus, he claims that truth can only be had when we place faith in the Word of God. Again, pagan philosophies contain some truth, but only faith in the Scriptures can lead to saving knowledge and must confirm all other truths. If there is truth in Pagan religion and philosophy, says Clement, then, “who is Plato, but Moses in Attic dress”.

- In his Stromaties, or “miscellaneous writings”, his focus, among other things, was on the revelation of the λογος in Jesus Christ as the rational principle incarnated in the universe, who is the means to our salvation. To achieve this salvation we must seek the knowledge of this λογος by faith, and through personal holiness, by which means we come into complete conformity to Him.

b) Origen of Alexandria (c.185-c.254) - As a Student of Clement, without question, he was the greatest Christian thinker between Paul and Augustine. He was prodigious in his output – the Barth of the Early Church so to speak. He is better known for his exegetical works than his theological works. He was an extremely creative thinker with immense influence that even exerted itself on the formation of the Nicene Creed. His Theology was debated for almost a century in what is known historically as the “Originist controversy”.

25

- As a guide to the spiritual life he was second to none. His “On Prayer” and “An Exhortation to Martyrdom” are still read today as classics of faith and devotion. He called himself a “man of the church” and was deeply committed to the Apostolic “Rule of Faith”.

- However, his penchant for Platonism often got him into trouble and he was later anathematized because of his supposed Christological subordinationism. That is, he seems to affirm that the Son is a lesser, though uncreated being, in relation to the Father. In his Christology he tended to reflect the Gnostic concept of the “hierarchy of being”.

- In his De Principii, his chief theological work and regarded by some as the first “systematic theology”, Origen saw the task of theology as answering the questions left open by the Apostolic witness. Theology, he affirms, is the discipline of answering to the fullest extent “the questions left unanswered, but alluded to in the Canon,” which was known in his day as the ‘rule of faith”. Origen saw theology as necessarily a speculative task because of the middle and neo-Platonist culture in which he had to work. Christianity would have been hopelessly irrelevant if it did not engage the questions of the culture and employ the answers offered in Platonism. So theology is the discipline of offering speculative answers, which extend what we already know in the Canon, to what we should know based on the questions it leaves open. Unfortunately, Origen left himself open to the Platonizing of the Christian faith.

- Origen’s greatest contribution to Christianity and the BCT was his exegetical and homiletic work. He was a tireless interpreter of Scripture. He believed Scripture to be the basis of all theology, to be inspired, and he insisted that faith in the text of Scripture as the Word of God was essential for salvation. Indeed his concept of salvation, which he calls the journey of the soul, begins with Scripture and ends in contemplation. It is Origen’s fervent desire to know God in the Scriptures, which is reflective of the Believers Church Tradition. c) The Cappadocians and the Synthesis of Trinitarian Theology - Basil of Caesarea (330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (331-395) and Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390).

- These theologians placed a high emphasis on community, Scripture and Tradition, but saw the task of theology as sorting out and indicating the true Church. They claimed to reject Hellenism but were still influenced by Platonism. This is clear from the fact that they put together a compendium of Origen’s works for instruction of their follow monks called the Philokalia.

- However, what they knew best was Scripture. They memorized large sections of it. Amphilochius, a monk in the Origenist tradition, provided a long list of the books of the Bible that they, (the Cappadocians), committed to memory. They were very influential in the development of Trinitarian Theology and influenced 26

the outcome (through their writings) of the Chalcedonian creed. They are central to the current debate regarding the communal life of the Trinity as a basis for the Church’s communal life. Perichoresis is the central concern with respect to the Cappadocians. (See Sara Coakley’s excellent articles in the 2004/ #3 edition of Modern Theology for a full assessment.)

- Eventually, the Cappadocians fell into error by insisting that humanity must eventually reach a state of deity. The insistence on Scripture and Salvation by faith in Christ through Scripture are themes that they contributed to the Believers Church Tradition.

II. Believers Church Themes from the Latin & Greek West. Note: The Western Church tradition was centered mostly in North Africa, Carthage, Italy (Rome). Most of the theologians and Biblical exegetes, church leaders that we associate with the Western tradition came from this main theological grouping. Many of the church Fathers fit into this tradition. a) Tertullian (c.160-c.220) - He was a North African theologian and controversialist writing from 196-212. Very little is known of him except from his writings. He was born in Carthage, North Africa. Initially he was a pagan, but converted to Christianity in his 30’s. Today he is often regarded as the Father of Latin theology – he was the first to write almost all of his treaties in Latin.

- Tertullian was strongly opposed to making Christian theology dependent on sources other than the Bible. He is famous for the question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, what has philosophy to do with theology?” He wrote extensively, but only 30 writings survive. There were many more.

- For Tertullian, theology is characterized by its desire to be faithful to the Scriptures. In doing theology himself, however, Tertullian would use Latin philosophical words like persona, substantia, trinitas, etc. to describe God’s Triune life and these would become the stock language for Western theology. He was Orthodox for the most part, though his works were later condemned because of, among other things, of his involvement with the Montanists; –an early sect who claimed to be prophets, and to know when and where Christ would return.

- He wrote works on Philosophy, Dogmatics, Apologetics, Didactic (catechetical and moral teachings) and miscellaneous topics. His views on women would not go over well today. Nor would his strict asceticism.

- In his Contra Praxeas, he introduces, for the first time in theology, the word “Trinity” as a way of interpreting Father, Son and Holy Spirit as they appear in the Scriptures. But in doing so, Tertullian’s desire was to remain faithful to the text. Theology was, for him, a faithful interpretation of the Scriptures. 27

- In terms of the Believers Church Tradition, Tertullian can be noted for his insistence on the singular authority of Scripture in theology and doctrine. He also placed great emphasis, through his contact with the Phrygian Montanist’s, on the immanent return of Christ. He insisted on a life of holiness, the need for faith in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, and the need for baptism by faith, and immersion of adults, as the proper form of Christian baptism. b) Chrysostom (349-407) - Chrysostom is hailed on both sides of the east-west Christian divide as one of their fathers. Chrysostom is well known in the Believers Church Tradition for his consistent approach to Biblical interpretation in terms of authorial intent and the single meaning of the text. In this way he differed considerably from the Greek east - though he wrote and taught in that context.

- The western tradition rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Greek east because it opened the Christian faith up to misinterpretation and multiple meanings of the text. This led, in their view, to theological errors, which were damaging to the church. In this respect Chrysostom and Tertullian were both relied upon by the Reformers in their approach to Scripture as sole authority over against tradition, which they wanted to subordinate to Scripture.

III. Augustine as a Source for Believers Church Theology a) Augustine’s conversion, like Paul’s, has been read in the Believers Church Tradition as a paradigm for their own experience of conversion.

- This can also be said of others in the history of theology, especially Anselm, John Huss, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, Calvin, Count Von Zinzindorf, Wesley, Whitfield, and a host of others. Personal conversion, through faith in the atoning work of Christ, as an inner experience, becomes central to the experience of salvation in the Believers Church Tradition. This remains true today. b) Augustine on the Authority of Scripture - Augustine viewed the Scriptures, according to a church synod over which he presided in Carthage in 397, as “Divine writings”. As far as he was concerned these Scriptures were without error and the literal words of God. For Augustine, whose views reflected those of the entire Latin church of his day, the Scriptures were the words of the Holy Spirit dictated to human authors.

- He claimed that this was the unanimous view of the church up until his time. In his discussion on Psalm 33, he writes, “Let us then hear what the Holy Spirit by the mouth of his prophet says in the words of the Psalm.” (as quoted in J. D. Hannah, Our Legacy, 48). A.D.R. Poleman summarizes Augustine’s view of Scripture as follows: 28

o “St. Augustine was fully convinced that the Scriptures were entirely the word of God. Everything in the Old and New Testament was written by one Spirit and must be believed beyond all doubt. Any suggestion of partial inspiration was rejected out of hand. … In the Scriptures, even historical events are related by divine authority, and must therefore be believed absolutely.” c) Augustine’s Engagement of Pelagius as Source for Believers Church Tradition’s Soteriology

- That the early Church Fathers had a clear understanding of the condition of humanity and the need for salvation is an overwhelming fact in the Church Fathers from Paul to Augustine. St. Clement of Rome, writing AD 100, sent a letter to the Corinthians stating that redemption is through the Lord Jesus Christ and not through our works. He writes, “We, therefore, who have been called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our wisdom or understanding, or piety, nor by works we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by faith by which Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning.” (Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1: 1f)

- The same view of salvation was held by the early apologists such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras etc. (130-200). Between 300-600 AD this continues to be a dominant theme especially in Chrysostom and the Cappadocians.

- It was Augustine, however, who gave focus and shape to this Soteriology, and so also the anthropology, that would have profound impact on Calvin and Luther in his works against Pelagius. Pelagius (354-418), was a British monk, who arrived in Rome in 380 AD. - He quickly gathered a following and taught on Paul’s epistles. He taught that:

i) There is no such thing as solidarity between Adam and us via original sin. ii) Freedom of will included freedom not to sin. iii) Grace is not universal and not always necessary for salvation, it is helpful.

- This doctrine had huge implications for God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge, but Augustine wades in with a counter argument that wins the day. His response to Pelagius can be summarized as follows.

i) He argued decisively and forcefully for original sin in solidarity with Adam. ii) He Argued forcefully that it was impossible, therefore, not to sin. iii) He concluded, therefore, that the grace of God was essential for salvation.

“Neither the grace of God alone, nor he alone, but the grace of God with him.”

29

Believers Church Tradition Session IV

Medieval Themes

Introductory Comments: - The common negative reaction to medieval theology is an over reaction to the inordinate influence of the Church and/or its theologians on the general populace as Christianity developed into a world reality. There were many theologians who wrote excellent theology, some of which reflected Early Church themes and thus Believers Church Tradition themes. These include aspects of the theology of people like Anselm, Aquinas, John Hus, John Wycliffe, St. Bonaventure and St. Bernard. Many monks, most of whom remain in relative obscurity, could be added. So there are some Believers Church Tradition themes in medieval theology to be discovered.

- Anselm and Aquinas were the pace setters, and though their theology was greatly influenced by their Catholic heritage, some BCT themes do emerge in their writings. By this we mean that there are aspects of their theology that we retain up to this day. But first, lets be clear on what some of the problems were that led to its being dominated by more Ecclesiastical themes. a) The conversion of Constantine - After the persecution of Diocletian, the emperor Galerius admitted failure in his attempt to obliterate Christianity and ceased persecuting Christians. In 311 Galerius issued an edict declaring the of toleration of Christianity.

- When Constantine came to power, he had a vision while going to battle. Eusebius tells us the story in his Ecclesiastical History (See Family of Faith, 151). He became a Christian and won the empire in battle.

- He soon after issued the Edict of Milan (313) guaranteeing relative freedom for all Christians. Christianity was favored by an emperor for the first time in history. The church, from this point on, began to have enormous influence over political social, religious, and economic affairs. b) Theology and Politics after Constantine - Following the Edict of Milan, the church was immediately caught up in a debate about the deity of Christ. Nicene Creed (325) was the outcome, when a council was called by Constantine at Nicaea.

- Athanasius (another great theologian) was the Bishop opposed to the heretic Arius. The creed settles with Athanasius’ argument put forward in his famous 30

theological tract, “On the Incarnation of the Word”. But, the church began to be hopelessly divided between East and West. c) A further problem in the 4th to 10th centuries was the Monasticizing of the faith. - Not long after the Egyptian monks went into seclusion for the sake of spiritual nurture, Saint Benedict developed a rule for such spiritual retreats. Before long, spirituality, theology and human understanding was linked with the activity of the monks almost exclusively. As Scripture and spiritual life become increasingly tied to the monastery, the laity lost touch with the text of Scripture and spiritual practice.

- When the Scriptures were finally encapsulated in Latin, a language that eventually died as a lingua franka (common speech), the Gospel all but disappeared from the common life of the Church. Despite this, we would do well to remember that there was much about monasticism that would have been good for the Reformation to hold on to. However, in their enthusiasm they completely rejected the monastic tradition. d) Synthesis - In the late Middle Ages theology would, through Aquinas, be brought into synthesis with science, law, mathematics, philosophy and classical culture. This would have enormous consequences for theology in the late Middle Ages and early Modern period. Their would come into theology a notion that Grace also depended on human action as much as the action of God. e) The emergence of Papal authority - The privileged status of the Roman Church, together with the concept of the divine right of kings, which required papal assent, led to a marriage of convenience between the Church and state, out of which emerged the Holy Roman Empire. The marriage of church and state in the Middle Ages was, by most accounts, disastrous. It led to schisms, corruption and theological extremism, which abounded in the Church in the Middle Ages. Eventually the Pope gained equivalency to the Apostles when he spoke from Rome, and thus spoke infallibly. This later became known as speaking Ex Cathedra” i.e. from the Holy See of Rome. All such pronouncements became Church Dogma. f) The Sacramentalization of Theology and thus Salvation - The Church eventually identified several Sacraments that it eventually taught was able to convey grace through participation and Priestly intercession. The Sacraments had to be participated in for salvation. Faith and justification were lost to what effectively amounted to a religion of works. The doctrine of grace was distorted and in implementation was placed in the hands of the priest.

31

- By the time of the Reformation, all notions of faith in the work of Christ for salvation was lost from the point of view of official Church doctrine, though individuals like Anselm, St Bernard and others knew of the original faith. Scripture was at best equal to tradition, the Church had become institutionalized and the ministry of the Gospel of faith was all but lost. The Clergy-laity distinction eventually lead to “sacradotalism,” or the idea that salvation could only be achieved through the sacraments as administered by the priest. But despite all of these developments, there were others who emerged in faith.

II. St. Anselm (1033-1109) offers some themes in the Believers Church Tradition

- Anselm was one of those few theologians of influence who never lost perspective on the need for individual faith. Born in Aosta, North Italy, he was trained in theology and philosophy at the Benedictine Monastery Bee, Normandy and was later appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. He was converted late in life and though he originally took monastic vows, he later joined the ranks of the secular (non-cloistered) clergy. Anselm was deeply influenced by Augustine, whom he “absorbed through every pore.”

- Anselm saw theology as the church’s response to situations requiring theological clarity. Almost all of his works are therefore occasional. He also made famous Augustine’s statement that theology is “faith seeking understanding” – “fides quarens intellectum”, in his opening prayer in his famous Proslogion. a) Theology as “faith seeking understanding”.

- In deed Anselm’s most famous work was The Proslogion, a work on the ontological argument for the existence of God. His Cur Deus Homo – which tries to answer the question “Why God became man?” runs a close second for influence. It is there that he lays out his famous and influential theory of the atonement known as the “satisfaction theory”. Anselm also thought that the task of theology must include reason as a secondary source for its propositions. Still his insistence is that theology is “faith, seeking understanding” as opposed to “understanding seeking faith.” The clear accent is on faith over reason and this is really Anselm’s most enduring contribution. b) The relationship between faith and reason. - Anselm seems to have embraced the theology of Augustine almost completely. He taught, with Augustine, that humanity fell fully with Adam into sin. There is a freedom of the will to make choices but such choices are limited, in that we are free only to choose evil. Original freedom, according to Anselm, is the ability to continue in an upright will. This was what Adam lost in the fall. Salvation, therefore, is the free gift of God to humanity, yet we have the freedom to resist it.

32

- Jasper Hopkins suggests, “Thus, Anselm can speak of faith as coming through grace; and like Augustine, he can silently leave it a mystery why this grace, which cooperates with the act of faith by being its necessary precondition, should be given to some men and not to others.” (As per Hannah)

- However, as the doctrine of grace developed from Augustine to Aquinas and beyond, it came to be seen as a gradual and not instantaneous possession. Grace was seen as infused in portions through Sacramental practice. This made it easy for others, like Aquinas, to develop a theology of sacraments that became a control mechanism for the Church over its people. This happened most distinctly in the Sentences of Peter the Lombard (1100-1160), which became the standard theological text for priests for over a thousand years. Thomas Aquinas himself had to produce a commentary on the Sentences, like all other theological students before him. He eventually came to dominate theology and Church Dogma for many years and remains a potent force in the Catholic Church to this day.

III. St. Thomas Aquinas and his Suma Theologica a) Thomas Aquinas (1231-1274)

- Thomas Aquinas is unanimously considered to be the greatest of the Medieval Theologians. He was born near Naples around 1224/5, of Italian nobility. He was a Benedictine oblate as a boy at Monte Cassino until 1239. He also studied the Arts (math, law, music and theology) at Naples University where he encountered Aristotle for the first time through the writings of Avicenna and Averros..

- After an argument with his family over his desire to join the Dominican Order, which lasted over a year, and during which his brothers locked him up, he finally joined the Dominican’s against his family’s wishes.

- The Dominicans sent him to study Philosophy and Theology in Cologne, where he consumed the vast majority of the western intellectual tradition in a space of 1- ½ years, (1252-54.) His teaching career began in 1256 and continued until death.

- He Wrote some 9,000,000 words, the greatest collection of which is contained in the Summa Theologica, (unfinished it was 1,500,000 words). This becomes the standard reference for theology, in tandem with the Sentences, for hundreds of years and eventually came to dominate in the late Middle Ages.

- For Aquinas, theology was the orderly synthesis and systematic exposition of the church’s cardinal doctrines. His own theology followed the question/answer method and saw as its task the inclusion of all other branches of learning including philosophy. Theology is, according to Aquinas, the “queen of the Sciences” and therefore the ultimate source for meaning. As a result, the Summa was a synthesis of Scripture, Theology, Philosophy, Moral Law and Nature. Theology is not just the study of the revelation contained in 33

Scripture, but the study of everything, with the starting point being God, who is the Prim cause of all that exists. “Theology is also the sacred teaching itself, still active, in the mode of developing and explicating the seeds in the soil of human reason”. It attempts, in terms somewhat different than Anselm, a” faith seeking understanding”. But the clear accent is on understanding, so that in Thomas’s theology reason threatens to usurp faith as the starting point. This was due in no small part to the rediscovery of the Greek classics, especially Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists, (Plotinus, Proclus, Porphery, Iamblicus and Pseudo Dionysius) b) Aquinas’ discovery of Aristotle. - The introduction of Aristotle into Western Europe in the 1200’s “complicated the relation between theology and philosophy” according to many accounts. (Placher, Introduction to Historical Theology p. 150) Islamic scholars in Spain translated Aristotle’s greatest works from Greek to Latin, and some from Greek to Arabic to Latin.

- Whereas Augustine had laid emphasis on faith, Aristotle showed that reason was a powerful means of achieving ultimate truth as well. The church initially rejected Aristotle and forbade that Aristotle should be studied and taught. It did so out of fear that Christian faith would be eclipsed by secular reason.

- Thomas Aquinas, however, adopted Aristotle’s rational approach to the ultimate knowledge of the universe and applied it to theology, with revelation supposedly serving as the check against error. In theory, Thomas maintained that the truths of reason must be measured against the superior truths of Scripture and faith, so that where they differed, faith must rule. However, this became an increasingly difficult rule to enforce, especially where truths arrived at by reason so flatly contradicted the truths of faith, and yet were clearly evident. This adoption of Aristotle eventually led to the overthrow of revelation altogether in the Enlightenment, seriously crippling theological endeavors in modern times. c) Aquinas on Nature and Grace – The Sacramental Approach to Salvation - This Aristotelian tying of theology to nature, or Natural Theology, lends itself to a full explication of the Sacramental views of Peter the Lombard by Aquinas. His views on salvation would obscure the Augustinian/Anselmanian approach right up to the Reformation.

- When it came time for the Catholic Church to respond to Luther and Calvin at the Council of Trent, (late 1500’s), Pope Leo the XIII (1879) says:

“The greatest and most special honor was given to the Angelic Doctor at the Council of Trent, when, during the sessions, together with the Bible and the formal decrees of the sovereign pontiffs, the Fathers of the Council had the open Summa placed 34

upon the altar so that thence they might draw councils, arguments and oracles.”

- Nevertheless, Aquinas agreed with Augustine that humanity is an absolute debtor to God. “It is impossible,” says Aquinas, “that any creature should come under grace through human effort.” (Summa. T. Q.112.1). We can prepare ourselves to receive grace, but God is the one who decides. Yet, on justification, Aquinas is less clear. He speaks most often of justification as a process, along with sanctification, which could be lost. Justification comes as grace is infused through the sacraments. In I, Q6.13 he writes:

“Sacraments are necessary for man’s salvation, insofar as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made holy” … then in II, Q 62.1 “and it is thus that the sacraments of the new law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purposes of conferring grace.”

- Clearly, then, the Believers Church Tradition can go with Augustine and Anselm on the nature of faith and salvation and the understanding of revelation and reason. It cannot, however, go with Thomas on the nature of reason and revelation, salvation and sacraments. But we can affirm his doctrine of sin.

c) Aquinas insist on the Church as God’s agent for dispensing saving grace.

- The seven sacraments of baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, Holy orders, and marriage are intimately connected with Catholic ecclesiology (again this is Sacerdotalism- a clergy/lay distinction that effectively cut off salvation from outside of the church.) The Council of Florence (1438- 1445) cites Peter Lombard and Aquinas as authoritative on the idea of extra ecclesiam nulla sulus, (Outside the Church there is no salvation). e) The Problem with the Thomistic Synthesis - This view of theology had the effect of making salvation a pilgrimage for the average Joe, with no final guarantee of fulfillment. “Salvation was understood to come to fallen creatures by an infusion of God’s grace through the church and its sacraments and to be realized through priestly pronouncement.” (Hannah, Legacy, 283). Thus there was never any assurance of salvation and literally millions lived in fear of purgatory, or worse, hell.

- Furthermore, revelation became subject to reason and Tradition, which resulted in a watering down scriptural authority. One had to become a scholar to understand one’s faith. A further retreat of the laity from marks of faith and practice resulted, which further compounded the monastic problem.

35

IV. Other Pre-Reformation Witnesses to the BCT

a) John Wycliffe, d. 1384. - John Wycliffe was one of the first to develop an intellectual foundation for protest against the church, its sacradotal oppression of the masses and its political power. He denounced the wealth and avarice of the church. “If Christ would have not so much as a little house in which to lay his head, how should Christ’s vicar be so great a lord in this world.” He also writes “The wicked pope is the anti-Christ and the devil, both a liar and the father of lies.”

- He saw Augustine’s doctrine of predestination as condemning the position of the pope. What help is the Church if God has predestined those who would be saved. The Bible, and not the Church must be an authority for faith, life and practice. “Every Christian ought to study this book because it is the whole truth.” Wycliffe therefore proceeded to translate the Scriptures into English.

- Wycliffe appealed to the State to force a reform of the Church. He was against transubstantiation, and was deeply influenced by Augustine in his soteriology. Soon after, he was burned as a heretic, but he left a group of followers, the Lollards, who continued to spread his call for reform.. b) Jan Huss - Hus was Born at Husinec, Southern Bohemia in 1370 and, as a young student, Studied philosophy and theology at University of Prague. He quickly gained a reputation as an impressive academic. He was influenced by Czech Reform movements of lesser note taking place around Janov 1355-93.

- Of particular importance for Huss were the writings of John Wycliffe, which were circulating in Prague at that time. He agreed with Wycliffe that the historic church was not the church of Christ. According to Huss the true church is the ecclesia invisibilis of the coetus electorum. Only God decides who belongs to the true Church, not a Pope or priest. In 1409 he was made Rector of the University and thereby given a strong voice for Reform.

- At the same time preached at Bethlehem Chapel, spreading his message of Reform. He criticized the “power hungry church of Constantine” for its excesses. Like the later Luther, he too preached against indulgences; this involved money. The Roman Curia placed him and the city under a Papal Ban in 1412, he left, but continued to preach reform wherever he went.

- In 1414 he was called to the council of Constance to defend his theology. He affirmed that he would recanted if they could show him his error from Scripture. Huss was burned as a heretic in 1415, but maintained to his dying day that, “the 36

church has no significance apart from the truth of Scripture.” Salvation was by faith in Christ alone. c) The Preparation for Reformation - So, you see, the middle ages were not without their bright lights. There were others who challenged the authority of Rome, called for reformation and placed trust in the sole authority of Scripture. Marsilus of Padua (1275-1342), an Italian, argued that the pope should be subject to the people of God as kings should be to citizens.

- Despite the best efforts of Popes and councils to encase the Gospel in an inaccessible language and restrict salvation to the confines of church sacraments, faithful men and women of God put their life on the line to declare faith in the finished work of Christ to be the only means of salvation. The church was, for many of them, the invisible body of those who professed such faith. It took the enormous efforts of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Uldrich Zwingli, and many others to make this call for reformation a reality. So lets go there, particularly with Luther and Calvin.

37

THS 571 Session V

The Importance of the Reformation in the Theology of The Believers Church Tradition

Introductory Comments

The current state of Reformation studies

- Two studies are worth looking at for a broad understanding of the Reformation. The Book by Heiko Oberman on Tradition in the Reformation and Timothy Georg’s book, Reformation Theology, both make valuable contributions. Alistair McGrath’s Introduction to Reformation Theology is also helpful but not as solid as the other two.

Various readings of the Reformation

- You will note in your reading that many traditions within Protestantism interpret the Reformation with certain ends in view. You have to read across the traditions and form your own interpretations of these events. But make no mistake, it was a time of absolute upheaval that saw the birth of Modernity, the end of the Middle Ages, and with it, the Holy Roman Empire. Massive change attended the protestant Reformation on every level.

Believers Church Tradition between Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Radicals

- Why is the Reformation so important to our current study of the Believers Church Tradition? Very simply because the Reformation provided the impetus for the various forms of Protestant sectarian faiths today, especially those represented here at ACTS. We continue to live out of the Tradition of Biblical authority, faith in Christ, the priesthood of all believers and the practice of ministry that flowed like a mighty river from the Magisterial and the Radical Reformations. Okholm and Phillips put it this way: “The Reformation still shapes American (sic) Evangelicalism. In fact, the term ‘evangelical’ became prominent during this period. Due to his emphasis on the euangelion, the good news of Jesus Christ, Luther was called an evangelical, a term Lutherans proudly use to this day. In a broad sense, evangelicals are those who remain faithful to the central insights of the Protestant Reformation. However, Protestantism itself is now over 475 years old and split into various denominations. The Reformation cry is a constant challenge and imperative: ecclesia reformata simper reformanda, (the Reformed church must always be reforming).” (Family of Faith, 167). But why specifically? This is the question we seek to answer in the following notes and feature film, “Martin Luther”. 38

I. The Reformation Represents a Recovery of Central Themes in Believers Church Tradition

a) The Augustinian connection

- For those of you who have been following these notes and the Buschardt reading, clearly it will not be lost on the reader that Augustine figures largely on the fabric of the Believers church theological tradition. Both within and without the Catholic church his doctrines of sin, grace and the human will have shaped the way we think and speak about the God-human relationship. This is particularly true for the likes on Anselm, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther (originally and Augustinian monk), J. Calvin, P. Melanchthon, M. Bucer, A. Zwingli, and even Menno Simons of the Radical Reformation. Some of these we will take up shortly. But Augustine is the touchstone figure who provides them all with the theological fodder with which they come against the Church.

b) Bernard Ramm’s understanding of evangelicals and the Reformation themes

- In his more than excellent book, The Evangelical Heritage, Bernard Ramm suggests that; “Although Evangelicals have differences within their own household, they are almost in uniform agreement with the Reformers’ theological stance. Just as the Evangelical is more in harmony with the theology of the Western church than the Eastern, he is also in far more in harmony with the theology of the Reformers that that of the Roman Catholic Church.” (The Evang. Heritage, p. 38f)

c) The centrality of the Reformation for Phillips and Okholm

- As we have seen, in their book The Family of Faith, Phillips and Okholm affirm it to be the very crystallization in theological formulation of the Believers church tradition. Their whole book centers on the Magisterial and Radical Reformations as the cradle of Believers Church Theology. (Family of Faith, p. 166f)

d) Carl Henry on the centrality of Reformed theology in Evangelicalism

- Modern Evangelical and Believers church theology was influenced in no small way by its greatest modern theologian, Carl F. H. Henry. He appeals directly to Augustine and the Reformation as the proper evangelical response to Modernity’s caustic philosophy of atheism and relativism. (God Revelation and Authority, Vol I. p322f)

39

- At this point we shall go over these issues in outline only, in relation to the film on Luther. More is said about many of these issues in greater detail in the lecture material below.

III. The Reformation Represents a Recovery of the Gospel

a) Scripture vs. tradition

In order to establish many of his arguments put forward in his 95 theses Luther had to argue for the validity of his views exclusively on the basis of Scripture because Tradition was, by his time, so varied and multilayered that he had to find a basis to which he could appeal that at once transcended tradition and yet was grounded in an authority that all Christians recognized. Luther formulated a way of appeal to Scripture that achieved this, but not in such a way that it was completely divorced from Scripture.

b) The rejection of Monasticism

Very early on in his career as a Reformer Luther became increasingly critical of the monastic life as a form of legalism, spiritual elitism and theological obstructionist. Luther therefore advocated the abandonment of vows, marriage of nuns and priests and the closure of monasteries. The repercussions for European Christianity were huge.

c) The translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular

To help combat the spiritual illiteracy of the laity Luther undertook to produce the first German translation of the Bible. This he did in a little over a year at the castle Wartburg, while hiding from the emperor and the Pope.

d) The authority of Scripture alone

The net result of these developments was a doctrine, formulated by Luther and Melanchton especially that stressed the sole authority of Scripture over against all appeals to tradition, Popes councils and or creeds. This doctrine of sola Scriptura became known as the formal principle of the Reformation. The doctrine of sola fidei became the ‘material principle’.

IV. The Reformation Represents a Recovery of the Laity in the Church

a) The rejection of Papal authority

Luther argued that no single priest or Pope could determine how, when and under what circumstances God would dispense his grace. Rather, says Luther, each person has their own ability, through the use of reason, to determine the meaning 40

of Scripture themselves, and thus work out the nature of how they become subjects of God’s gracious action.

b) The priesthood of all believers

Given that we are our own interpreters of Scripture we, especially males, become priests in our own right with the ability to act on God’s behalf in their families and communities of faith. The clergy laity distinction is not destroyed but the power and status of the priest is greatly reduced as a result.

c) The recovery of spirituality for the laity

The consequence of all of these major shifts in doctrine and ecclesial practice was a considerable improvement in the spiritual nurture of the average lay person, especially once they were taught to read and were given a copy of Luther’s translation of the Bible, a feat made possible by the Gutenberg press.

The Reformation Represents a Reversal in the Cultivation of Theology in terms of:

The rejection of the Thomistic Synthesis The emphasis on “Faith seeking understanding” The reordering of Revelation and Reason The new orientation of the Church to and in the world

Concluding Discussion of the video.

Sola Scriptura

Sola Fidei; Sola Christus

Priesthood of all believers

The task of the Church

41

Believers Church Tradition Session VI

The Reformation Recovery of Scripture. Sola Scriptura

Introductory Comments: - As already noted, some sort of authoritative source lies at the heart of every religion. Scripture serves this function in Christianity. The Reformation wanted to place emphasis on the sole authority of scripture from the start.

- The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone is the material principle of Reformation. The doctrine of sola scriptura is the formal principle of the Reformation. Yet, this principle had to be developed out of a period that gave equal weight to tradition as an authoritative source for theology and church life.

- The principle of sola scriptura is a direct product of Luther’s travail of soul in seeking forgiveness. Another tradition could not console him, only Scripture. Luther’s discoveries in Scripture inevitably led to the questioning papal authority.

I. Scripture and Tradition in the Middle Ages a) The concept of Scripture inherited by the Reformers – the materially sufficient source for revelation.

- According to Luther, the Scriptures are the materially sufficient source of Christian doctrine. i.e. the essentials of the faith could be ascertained from Scripture. Yet, there were matters of the faith about which the Scriptures did not speak (creeds). For instance, when exactly did the bread and wine transfigure into Christ’s blood and body.

- On these and other issues the church felt it necessary to work out its position on the basis of what the Scriptures implied, but this was considered to be subordinate to Scripture in theory. b) By the end of the Middle Ages however, tradition was seen as at least equal to Scripture. - Heretics also appealed to Scripture to prove their point as John Dryden points out. This was one of the problems attendant to an emphasis on Tradition. Dryden writes:

For did not Arius first, Socinus now The Son’s eternal Godhead disavow? And did not these by Gospel text alone 42

Condemn our doctrine and maintain their own? Have not all heretics to same pretense? To plead the Scriptures in their own defense?

- To help us sort out what was problematic about Tradition for the reformers, lets follow Heiko Obermann who identifies two strata of tradition in late Middle Ages.

- On one level, (T1), a tradition of Scriptural interpretation was referred to as a “tradition of interpretation.” Irenaeus of Lyons was one of the first to institutionalize the way a passage was interpreted. “Scripture could not be interpreted in a random way but according to the context of the historical continuity of the Christian church.” (McGrath, Reformation Theology, 136)

- On a second level, (T2), in the 14th and 15th centuries, a different understanding of tradition developed. Tradition soon came to be understood as a 2nd source of revelation in addition to Scripture. Where Scripture was silent, God had providentially arranged a revelation to the church. This was seen as a stream of “unwritten revelation” going back to the Apostles.

So then in the Middles Ages

1) Tradition is a single source of faithful interpretation of Scripture and yet, 2) Tradition is a second or “dual source” of revelation on matters not dealt with in the Scriptures.

- Thus if a doctrine is questioned at the Scriptural level, it may find sufficient evidence at the T2 level, thus proving it to be true. When the Reformers came out against tradition, it is against this second concept, not the first; though the first is clearly subordinated to Scripture. c) A further problem for Reformers was the dominance of the Textus Vulgatus.

- When a Medieval Theologian refers to Scripture, it’s the Vulgate he has in mind. “Textus Vulgatus” means the common text, and was originally translated into Latin by St. Jerome. Though different versions existed, a standard authoritative version appeared in 1226 known later as the “Paris Version”. It quickly became the established norm for Medieval Theology.

- The end result was a rather bad translation of faulty versions of Jerome’s text. Not until the rise of Renaissance textual criticism would this be fixed. Meanwhile, other versions were in use, but unavailable to the peasants because of widespread illiteracy in Latin. All other translations were still based on the faulty Vulgate version of 1226. The Reformation, combined with humanist forces of the Renaissance, would unseat this authoritative version once and for all in Protestantism.

43

II. Renaissance Humanism and the “Unleashing” of Scripture - Erasmus a) The humanists emphasized the need to return to the priority of Scripture over later commentaries on Scripture.

- They now took the direct approach to Scripture. They rejected the complicated approaches of glosses and commentaries which was required of them before they could actually approach the text itself. b) Scriptures were also to be read in the original languages,

- Greek and Hebrew, rather than the faulty Latin translation was now made available to scholars and monks. This reflects the growing humanist interest in Greek language and culture. The Renaissance scholar was to be an expert in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. One such trilingual school was located at Wittenberg, Where Luther taught. Very soon, the glaring mistakes of the Vulgate were evident to all. c) Two essential tools were made available.

1) The Humanist Erasmus published his important Novum Instrumentum Omne, a new Greek text of the NT in 1516 and Lefevre d’Etample produced his famous Hebrew Text of the Psalms. 2) Humanists also made available Greek and Hebrew primers – of which Melanchthon’s is most famous. d) These advances allowed biblical and theological scholars to recapture the text and provide a more accurate Greek New Testament and Hebrew Bible.

- Erasmus himself, omitted verses from the reading of the Vulgate (e.g. I John 5:7) because they were not there in the Greek text. e) The humanist of the Renaissance helped scholars recapture authorial intent and experience.

- Now events like Paul’s conversion experience, the experience of the Resurrection, took on new significance. As McGrath puts it:

“Scripture was now read with a sense of anticipation; it was believed that the vitality and excitement of the Apostolic era could be regained in the sixteenth century, by reading and studying the Scriptures in the right manner.”

44

f) Erasmus went further and attempted to reintroduce Scripture to the masses with his Enchiridion of 1515.

- He argued that a biblically literate laity held the key to the renewal of the church. This, I believe is also true today. In the Enchiridion he marginalized both church and clergy. The lay reader of Scripture had an adequate guide for faith in an accurate translation of the Scriptures. McGrath offers a significant conclusion here regarding all these changes. He writes:

“These views, which achieved wide circulation among the lay intelligentsia of Europe, unquestionably prepared the way for the Scriptural reforming program of Luther and Zwingli (and Calvin) in the period between 1519-1525. Luther was widely regarded as building on a solidly Erasmian foundation.” (McGrath, Introduction to Reformation Theology, 139)

III. The Bible Becomes The Reformation Text. “The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of the Protestants.” William Chilligworth a) Calvin’s, Institutes and Zwingli’s, On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, were also significant publications.

- Calvin states clearly what the Protestant principle is.

“Let this then be a sure axiom: that nothing ought to be admitted in the church as the Word of God, save that which is contained, first in the law and prophets, and secondly in the writings of the Apostles; and that there is no other method of teaching in the church than according to the prescription and rule of this Word… I approve only those human institutions which are founded upon the authority of God and derived from Scripture.”

- Zwingli was the first of the Reformers to put this principle in theological form in his, On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God. There he writes: “The foundation of our religion is the written Word and the Scriptures of God.”

- His is representative of the high view of Scripture held by the Reformers. It differs with the medieval view primarily in terms of how it is defined as authoritative and how it is interpreted.

45 b) The Reformers also had definite views on the Canon of Scripture.

- By Canon we mean simply “rule” or “norm”. It includes the authentic books of the Bible form the cannon of faith and does not include, according to the Reformers, the so-called Apocrypha. As such the Reformers challenged the Vulgate version of the Canon.

- The Reformers believed that only the Old Testament Hebrew canon was acceptable as the Christian canon. Thus the Apocryphal literature was no longer used to substantiate its theological propositions. Furthermore, by removing the Apocryphal books, the Reformers denied Biblical authority to certain doctrines of the Catholic church. (e.g. praying to and for the dead. II Maccabees 12:40-6).

- The Catholics accused the Protestants of leaving out those books of Scripture that denied their theology, while the Protestants accused the Catholics of the opposite, namely expanding the canon. Thus, we now have (after 1546, Council of Trent) the Catholic vs. the Protestant Canon. But this leaves us with an important question. One that is crucial to our conception of Biblical authority in the BCT. c) How do Luther and Calvin Conceive of Biblical Authority?

i) Luther and Calvin grounded the authority of Scripture in its relation to the conception of the “Word of God”.

- Scripture was the “Word of God.” For others, like the Catholic theologians Erasmus and Eck, Scripture contained the Word of God. For Luther and Calvin Scripture was the very speaking of God about salvation.

- For Calvin in particular it was the Holy Spirits guidance of the writers that constituted the Bible as the Word of God. This was what was meant by Sola Scriptura.

ii) The Reformer’s therefore insisted that the authority of Popes, Creeds and Councils was subordinate to Scripture.

- The Reformer’s authority is tied directly to their faithful interpretation of Scripture. Thus, their authority is derived from Scripture only where they are faithful to its textual integrity. “The Fathers and the Councils are authoritative only insofar as they agree with the rule of the Word.” But insofar as they do that, “we give them rank and honor”. (Calvin)

iii) The authority of the church is grounded in its fidelity to the Scriptures.

- Just as Creeds, Councils and Popes are, so is the Church subject to Scripture. No Church, regardless of its historic faithfulness, is authoritative for all time. 46

iv) The task of the Church then, is faithful proclamation of the Word.

- Furthermore, no longer should the Bible be relegated to the monastery and the university. This meant the need for the production of a lingua franca Bible. Luther’s German edition was an enormous contribution in this regard. Luther would accomplish what Wycliffe couldn’t, namely the wide spread availability of the Scriptures in a language other than Latin. d) Summary: The role of tradition. Does Sola Scriptura do away with tradition?

- According to the Radical Reformation the answer is yes, the Bible and only the Bible, read and taken literally, has authority for faith and practice. The magisterial Reformation, however, had a very positive understanding of the role of tradition in theology. Where tradition meant, in the first sense talked about above, an appeal to the faithful interpretation of Scripture in the Church’s history, then tradition had a very important role. It had the role of checking and safeguarding future interpretations. As a matter of fact, Luther initially wanted to reform the church from within, and still accepted tradition where it rightly interpreted the Scripture.

- The Reformation retained much of the Catholic doctrines of Christ, God, humanity, sin and the Holy Spirit intact. Where it differed is precisely on the four themes of the Believers Church Tradition, Scripture, Salvation, Church and ministry (sacraments). Calvin was more distinct on the latter than Luther who still insisted on the sacramental nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Thus, the Reformation retained the important role of the collective community in deciding matters of faith and practice. McGrath writes:

“It will therefore be clear that it is totally wrong to suggest that the Magisterial Reformation elevated private judgment above the corporate judgment of the church or that they degenerated into some form of individualism.”

- We, as heirs of this Protestant tradition, have misread its understanding of the role of tradition and as a result, have fallen into private judgments and individualism. This was not the intent of the Reformation in its further establishment of the Believers Church Tradition. Yes, the text is authoritative, but it also needed to be interpreted, and no interpretation can take place without the process known as “traditioned experience.” This leads us to our last point, that of hermeneutics.

47

IV. The New Hermeneutic of the Reformation

Hermeneutics, for our purposes here is to be understood simply as the “science of interpretation”. a) The Reformation understanding of Biblical interpretation was quite opposed to the Catholic understanding of the “fourfold sense of Scripture.” (i.e. literal, allegorical, tropological (moral), anagogical (spiritual).

- Luther adopted a form of literal historical approach combined with a prophetic life giving understanding. The two together, says Luther, give an adequate meaning of Scripture. Erasmus also offered a similar hermeneutic in which he emphasized first the literal interpretation and then the “spiritual”. The same can be also said of Zwingli.

- For Calvin however, only “the plain sense” of Scripture is of paramount importance. One does not venture spiritual interpretations where they are not warranted by the text. b) It must be emphasized that the Radical Reformation sought to encourage individual interpretation of Scripture.

- The Magisterial Reformation later retracted on this point, but the Radical Reformation in Switzerland and Holland made individual interpretation axiomatic.

48

THS 571 Session VII Believers Church Tradition

The Reformation Understanding of Justification By Faith

Introductory Comments: - That the doctrine of justification by faith is the heart of the Reformation doctrine is beyond question. That it is the heart of the Believers Church Tradition is also undeniable. But, we must keep in mind that the Reformation was broader and deeper than just this issue. It had tremendous implications for the doctrines of Revelation, Church and the Sacraments as well. But, none of those, save maybe the doctrine of Scripture, took the prominent place that justification did.

- It is of some importance to Lutherans today that the doctrine of justification has been redefined to fit the Catholic understanding, which has also been adjusted. The two denominations in Europe recently signed a “Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith”, but 176 prominent Lutheran theologians refused to sign it. So the issue of justification is once again in the theological limelight.

I. Justification as a Foundational Theme. Redemption in & through Christ. Martin Luther once wrote the following in an “Open Letter on Translating”:

“I am not the only one or the first to say that faith alone justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others; and if a man is going to read St. Paul and understand him, he will have to say the same thing and can say nothing else.” Works of Martin Luther, Vol. V, 15-22. a) The theme of redemption is a constant one throughout of Christian history.

- The term soteria, the Greek word meaning to save, is used throughout history. There are 5 ideas linked with this concept that are important for understanding the Reformed doctrine of justification.

i) The image of victory. Christ has gained victory over sin. ii) The image of legal status. Christ has gained new status for us. iii) The image of renewed relationship. II Cor. 5:19 “God was in Christ…” iv) The image of liberation. Prisoners of sin have been pardoned, set free. v) The image of restoration. Wholeness. “The old has become new.”

- In reality justification is one part of what constitutes the salvific process. It gained central importance in the Reformation because of a renewed interest in Paul.

49

- Finally, in Luther justification came to mean the status of being righteous before God. At the heart of Luther’s theological concerns is the desire for sinners to realize this new right standing before God and how it could be by faith. b) The first requirement is that we have a clear understanding of the development of justification in Luther’s theology.

- As most of us are well aware, the New Testament word charis (grace) is defined as “free unmerited favor from God to us”, and is an important Pauline theme. Grace was also a key theme of Augustine’s theology. So much so that he was called the doctor gratiae as we have seen. Thus, the engagement of Paul meant also a re-engagement of Augustine.

- The Middle Ages reduced the concept of grace to a supernaturally infused substance through sacramental practice administered exclusively through the priesthood. Grace is also seen in the Middle Ages as a property within us that God has created to aid our redemption. It was not so much an attribute of God as a sort of divine substance. Grace, for instance, could be procured through sacraments, treasury of merit, or money given to the Church for indulgences.

- For Luther it is the idea that grace is the free unmerited favor of God, as an aspect of his being, that underlies Paul’s and Augustine’s understanding of justification. So also Zwingli and Calvin. b) Luther’s Tortured Soul and the Discovery of Justification (His Tower Experience)

- Luther also struggled to come to grips with his perception of an angry and judgmental God. His monastic life brought him no relief or sense of forgiveness. Only through his commentary on the Psalms and Romans did he finally find it. (Rom 1:17) So convinced was Luther, on the basis of Scripture, that at the Diet of Worms, he staked his life on it with the statement, “here I stand, I can do no other.”

- This idea convinced him that the church was missing the very core of the Gospel conception of salvation. So he felt it necessary to reform it. His theological breakthrough answered, in a final way, Luther’s own desire to know how it was possible for a sinner to stand before a righteous God. c) Summary of Luther’s Doctrine of Justification

- For Luther, justification meant; “the net effect that the death and resurrection of Christ guaranteed for the believing sinner who placed faith in that work of Christ.” It was a legal and forensic term indicating a new standing before God as a righteous person, by grace, through faith in the work of Christ.

50

II. Luther’s Earlier Discoveries ( a closer look). a) Luther’s education at U. of Erfert (1501-1505)

- This time of education in Luther’s life brought him into contact with the leading lights of a medieval school of philosophy called “via moderna”. The “via moderna” group followed the Medieval theology of Gabriel Biel (1495d). Luther initially followed the concept of covenant that came out of the theology of the via moderna, which stressed the human contribution necessary to the covenant in terms such as, “as far as we are able”, or “as much as lies within us”. b) In the courses of his Biblical exegesis he applied this idea in his interpretation of the Bible.

- He did this in his commentaries on the Psalms and in his lectures on Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, etc. These commentaries remain important sources of information regarding Luther’s theological development. The most famous of these was his commentary on the book of Romans. c) In these lectures he emphasized that God had established a covenant (pactum).

- This covenant with humanity, by which God is obliged to justify anyone who meets a certain minimum condition, still placed the emphasis on human action to receive or merit of grace.

- In effect, faith is the simplest and most basic of these covenantal conditions. All that is required is a simple act on our part. Our simple act of faith places God under the covenantal requirement to forgive us. d) But Luther continued to struggle with the righteousness of God.

- Even the minimal act of faith in Christ, as a human act, failed to comfort Luther. In light of God’s impartial judgment of the sinner, surely he would be condemned. God judges only on the basis of the merit of our faith and/or unbelief as a human act.

- By 1515 Luther became aware of his basic inability to meet this minimal condition. What happens, he thought, if sinners are so crippled and trapped by sin that they cannot fulfill the demand which is made of them. Pelagius and Gabriel Biel both assumed that humans were capable of this minimal act without difficulty.

- Here Luther began to differ with the via moderna in favor of Augustine. He saw humanity as so fallen that even the act of faith required God’s grace. Luther comments on his own inability to do this stating:

51

“I was a good monk, and kept my rule so strictly that I could say that if ever a monk could get to heaven through monastic discipline, I was that monk … and yet my conscience would not give me certainty, but I always doubted and said, ‘You didn’t do that right. You weren’t contrite enough. You left that out of your confession.’ The more I tried to remedy an uncertain, weak and troubled conscience with human tradition, the more I daily found it more uncertain, weaker and more troubled.” (Luther’s Works, Table Talk)

- Thus, he concluded that on his own he could not meet the precondition for salvation. He lacked the resources. Therefore, the righteousness of God became a threat to him. Justification was there to be had, but the precondition was impossible, thus he questions: Wie kriege ich einene gnädigen Gott? “This was more than an academic or philosophical question, it was existential one”. McGrath, Reformation Theology Page 45

III. Luther’s Understanding of Faith Alone a) “The reason why some people do not understand why faith alone justifies is that they do not know what faith is.”

4 Crucial Points on Sola Fidei

1. Faith is personal vs. historical – It is not enough to assent to the historic basis of the Christian faith. Saving faith concerns believing and trusting that Christ was born pro nobis; born for us personally and has accomplished for us the work of salvation.

2. Faith is trust – (fiducia). Says Luther:

“Everything depends upon faith. The person who does not have faith is like someone who has to cross the sea, but is so frightened that he does not trust the ship. And so he stays where he is and is never saved, because he will not get on board and cross over.” i.e. We must trust that it is so. It is faith in God’s provision of faith.

3. Faith also unites the believer to Christ. Faith is a mutual union between Christ and believer.

4. Faith is also a gift from God. This is “justification by faith through grace”

52 b) The causes and consequences of justification by faith as a Reformation theme.

Causes

i) Luther’s’ disagreement with the sale of indulgences and the false hopes they engendered. ii) The vagueness of the role of priest and penance in salvation. Luther felt the need to clarify the understanding of forgiveness.

iii) The role of the church in salvation via popes, sacraments, and priests.

Consequences

i) The emergence of individual salvation apart from priest and church. ii) The emergence of the concept of “priesthood of all believers”. iii) The denial of several catholic doctrines like indulgences, purgatory, treasury of merit, etc. iv) The closing of the cloister and re-secularization of monks and nuns.

IV. Other Reformation Views on Justification a) The Swiss Reformed understanding.

i) Zwingli – placed less emphasis on this doctrine of justification and saw sacraments and church (Ecclesiology) as needing reform. For him, justification had more to do with moral renewal and regeneration of institutions, especially the church.

ii) Calvin and Bucer – Calvin saw in Luther’s emphasis on justification, along with Luther’s friend Spalatin, a dangerous lack of ethical impetus. Faith almost overwhelms the acting subject. Calvin and Bucer both tried to emphasize the subjective aspect of the act of faith. Bucer argued for two stages in justification – one in which God acts and one in which the human acts. Calvin’s understanding includes an emphasis on faith as union with Christ, which leads to justification. We are declared righteous on the basis of our faith in Christ’s work as an act of grace, but appropriate justification as the initiation into the Christian life by our obedient action. b) The Catholic response to justification at Trent

i) Justification is the process of becoming and grace is infused through sacraments. ii) Righteousness is an internal matter that is caused by God. iii) Faith was inherently a human act of obedience and spiritual renewal through sacraments, vows and spiritual experiences. 53 iv) The assurance of salvation. The Council of Trent denies any final assurance of salvation stating, “Nobody can know with a certainty of faith which is not subject to error, whether they have obtained the grace of God or not.”

54

THS 571 Session VIII

Believers Church Tradition The Reformation Understanding of Church

Introductory Comments:

“The Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the church.”

- The Reformed doctrine of the church is less influential then doctrine of justification. Luther concluded that the Roman Church was no longer the authentic church of Christ. a) Early on in Luther’s career he had a distinct distaste for schism.

- No where in the 95 theses does he express desire to leave the Church. The denominationalism of our day was called schism in his day and was odious to him. b) Many of Luther’s colleagues saw Reform as an in-house and temporary situation.

- The Augsburg Confession remained conciliatory to the Catholic church. c) In 1545 the Council of Trent was, on the other hand, hostile to the Protestant movement.

- Trent identified and condemned all the leaders of Reform. Thus, making the separation of the church from Protestantism a fact. The question of the church in Reformed theology is worked out after the fact of separation for the most part.

I. Luther’s Understanding of the Church a) For Luther, the church is the means through which the Word of God conquers.

- Its task of the church is the faithful proclamation of the Word of God. This is what makes the church the church. If she is unfaithful to thus task, she is no longer functioning as the church. Calvin takes this line of thought as well.

55 b) As a result the Episcopal concept of ordination in terms of the administration of the sacraments is less important.

- The most important task of the ordained clergy is the proclamation of the Word. Luther wanted to simplify the church but keep the sacraments of baptism and Lord’s Supper. But here, Luther ran into heavy opposition from Zwingli and Radical Reformers. Sebastian Franck accused Luther of perpetrating the Constantinian corruption of; The Apostolic church to which they wanted to return. Luther was forced to deal with the accusations. How could he distinguish himself from the Radicals and yet from Rome? c) Thus, Luther continues to see the church as a divinely ordained means of grace,

- But only in terms of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Baptism and the proclamation of the Word. Contrary to the Radicals, Luther accepted Augustine’s view of the church as a mixed body. But the difference lay in his denial of papal authority and the final authority of councils and creeds. Luther desired to remain but was eventually forced to accept the reality of division and schism.

II. Calvin’s Understanding of the Church a) Word and Sacrament as marks of the True Church

- Calvin’s “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” were the backbone of the Geneva Experience. His emphasis fell on discipline, organization and governance. Calvin was well aware of the need for institutional reform. The church, as he understood it, was constituted in and by its faithfulness to the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the two primary sacraments. But he interpreted the meaning of the sacraments differently than Luther. b) In Switzerland, his more simplistic understanding of church led to growth

- As “Evangelicals” forsook the mother church they went to Reformed churches. “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, there it is not to be doubted that a church of God exists” says Calvin. And people should go there to hear the gospel, if they could not hear it in mother Church. c) Bucer’s four-fold office, which Calvin learned about in Strasbourg, yielded for Calvin the offices of Pastor, Doctor, Elder and Deacon.

- Bucer was very influential on Calvin. Calvin transformed these offices, as he learned them from Bucer, and developed a deaconate. He then developed the consistory to govern these offices of the Church.

56

d) Calvin’s four-fold office and the Biblical understanding of order of ministry.

- As we noted above, Calvin insisted that the church of Geneva be established on the basis of the four-fold office of pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon. This was, according to him, the biblical pattern based on Eph. 4:16f and Titus. Of these four, the role of pastor was predominant. He gave more space to the role of deacon than to teacher or elder. Calvin held the deaconate in high esteem because he felt Paul did so as well. These leaders were to be experts in social and civil organization and aid.

- Elders are often chosen from the “nursery” of the deaconate. As to eldership, Calvin noted that the word πρεσβυτερος describes not age but office. Calvin did not equate age with spiritual maturity because Paul didn’t in his dealings with Timothy. Presbyters were given the dual role on the basis of I Tim. 5:17, that of leadership (ruler ship) and that of teaching.

- Calvin also taught that the offices of prophet, evangelist and apostle were temporary in nature and had ceased at the end of the Apostolic age. No office is more honorable than that of pastor. In the spiritual nurture of the congregation, the choice of pastor was second only to the choice of the teacher, or Doctor. The New Testament terms for elder, teacher and pastor all refer to the task of the pastor as shepherd, leader and teacher of the Word. “A pastor need two voices”, says Calvin, “one for gathering the sheep and another for driving away wolves and thieves.”

d) Calvin’s understanding of the church and consistory was outlined in his Ecclesiastical Ordinances.

- The consistory was the most controversial of these ecclesial proposals. It consisted of 12 lay elders, selected annually, and all the members of the venereal company of pastors. Its purpose was to maintain discipline in the church. It tried to deal with both moral and doctrinal problems considered to be beyond the pastor’s scope. It ended up being a body for the policing of Reformed orthodoxy.

e) Calvin on the role of the church

- Why, in Calvin’s view, was there a need for the church at all? Just as God used historical means in the process of justification – the incarnation – so also he uses historical means for sanctification – the church together with the Holy Spirit. Despite its limitations, the church is chosen by God for its task. Says Calvin:

“I shall begin then, with the church, into the bosom of which God is pleased to gather His children, not only so that they may be nourished by her assistance and ministry while they are infants and children, but also so that they may be guided by her 57

motherly care until they mature and reach the goal of faith. For those to whom God is father, the church shall also be mother.”

- Here he is alluding to Cyprian of Carthage who in the 3rd century wrote, “You cannot have God as your Father unless you have the church for your Mother.” Calvin is not in favor of a rampant individualism but places a high priority on the corporate life of the church. The “Word of God” conceives us within the womb of the church and where the church nurtures this Word she is true to her calling.

- Calvin, more than any other Reformer, draws a clear distinction between the church visible and invisible. At one level the church is a visible community of believers. At another, the company of the elect is an invisible entity; this entity is known only to God. The church invisible consists only of the elect while the visible church consists of both the elect and reprobate as a mixed community. The invisible church is the object of faith and hope. The visible constitutes the present experience of the church. All Christian must honor and remain supportive of the visible church. Even so, in the long run there is only one elect, invisible body of God. There are two important consequences that flow from this distinction.

1) The present church cannot identify the elect and reprobate. (Augustine) 2) Yet, one can identify, on the corporate level whether a church visible is part of the church invisible.

Calvin offers two criteria for distinguishing between an elect and a non-elect church.

1) “Wherever we see the Word of God preached purely and listened to.” 2) “Wherever the sacraments are administered according to the instruction of Christ, there we cannot doubt that a church exists.”

- Thus, it is not the members who make the church the church, but the presence of the means of grace in Word and sacrament. As such, the church is endowed with spiritual power, though not in the catholic sense. The church is also not a civil authority, but a spiritual entity. While church and state can be complimentary they should not be confused.

Sacraments - Calvin offered two distinctive features of a sacrament. 1) It is an external symbol by which the Lord seals on our conscience his promises of good will toward us, 2) It is a “visible sign of a sacred thing, a visible form of an invisible grace.”

Only those Sacraments commanded by the Lord are mandatory including;

1. Baptism (infant) was to be retained as the sole right of the church. 58

2. The Lord’s Supper – the primary concept is that of symbolism; though grace is present to us as a substance, which strengthens and encourages. They do not confer salvific power however. 3. The proclamation of and obedience to the Word of God.

59

THS 571 Session IX

Believers Church Tradition The Radical Reformation and Believers Church Tradition

Introductory Comments: The Radical Reformation - “Let it now be said that the worth of the Anabaptist endeavor is not to be judged in the light of their contribution to history. They took their stand in the light of eternity regardless of what might or might not happen in history.” R. Bainton

- The Radical Reformation was a tremendous movement of spiritual and ecclesial renewal that stood on the margins of the Protestant Reformation. Yet it, more than any other movement, has been formative in the Believers Church Tradition.

- In terms of its vitality it was neither marginal nor peripheral. It embraced ecumenism and sectarianism, violence and Pacifism. It tended to be ascetic, mystical and yet rational and critical. It was critical of both the Magisterial Reformation and the Tridentine Reformation.

- The Reformers in Germany and Switzerland called them “destroyers of the church.” Luther referred to them as “Schwärmer” or pests. Calvin called them “fanatics”, “deluded”, “scatterbrains”, “ass’” and “mad dogs”.

- G. H. Williams describes them as “a group of religious innovators who remained neither in the Roman Catholic Church nor in the main line Protestant churches. He divided them into three groups: “Anabaptists, “Spiritualists” and “Evangelical Rationalists”.

- What unified them under the term Radical Reformation was their desire to “cut back through the accretions of ecclesiastical tradition … to the authentic root (radix) of faith and order. This radix becomes the theme for Radical Reformation. For the Anabaptist the Bible, especially the New Testament, was the “root”. They desired not merely to reform the church, but to restore it to its pristine, apostolic purity. For the Spiritualists it was the “inner” word that was important. It was the Spirit’s witness within that constituted the New Testament root. For the Evangelical Rationalists it was the appeal to reason; illuminated by the Spirit, informed by the Scripture. As such the Radical Reformation was a “reformation of the Reformation”.

60

 The key issue in the Radical Reformation however, from the standpoint of Luther and Calvin, was the Sacraments.

 The Radical Reformers interpreted them completely in terms of faith and symbol, especially water baptism.

We have chosen Menno Simons as our Reformer for the Radical Reformation, but keeping in mind that there were many others, some of whom we will mention later. Menno Simons was probably their most formative theologian. We shall rely on him for its theology.

I. Menno Simons and Anabaptism a) The role of Conrad Grable and Felix Mantz.

- Swiss Anabaptism arose out of the Zwinglian Reformation. Conrad Grable and Felix Mantz were both disciples of Zwingli who felt they were merely carrying his agenda to its natural conclusion. Through their study of the Bible they became convinced that their infant baptism was invalid. Their goal then became the restoration of true baptism for believers. On Jan. 21, 1525, they met in the home of Felix Mantz in Zurich.A letter from that time describes what happened:

“And it happened that they were together. After fear lay greatly upon them, they called upon God in heaven, that He should show them mercy. Then George arose and asked Conrad for God’s sake to baptize him; and this he did. After that he baptized others also.” (i.e. George Blaurock)

- All three, Blaurock, Mantz and Grabel were in turn, imprisoned, killed by drowning, and exiled. Yet their movement grew exponentially. b) Initially Anabaptist’s were characterized by their doctrinal heterogeneity and organizational haphazardness.

- Hans Hut, for instance, claimed Christ would return in 1528. Melchior Hoffmann, a follower of Mantz set a different date (1554)

- Both Hut and Hoffmann preached Pacifism in the face of adversity. These events were centered on Munster and Strasbourg. Hoffmann’s efforts at evangelism were felt all the way to the Netherlands and eventually fell on the ears of Menno Simons.

61 c) The Emergence of Menno Simons and Dutch Anabaptism. (Menno Simons)

- Simons was the son of a Dutch dairy farmer. We know little about his early education but he developed a good proficiency in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He was acquainted with the church fathers, especially Tertullian, Cyprian and Eusebius. He claimed never to have read the Bible until after his ordination as a priest in 1524 at 28 years old. He was reported to be a born leader.

- Like Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, Simons had a personal struggle in relation to the Gospel. Through his doubts about Catholic dogmas, and his contact with Luther’s “Babylonian Captivity of the Church” and then Zwingli’s teachings on the Sacraments, he came to a new understanding of faith.

- He became especially concerned about infant baptism. Through his contact with Anabaptist preachers and the writings of St. Cyprian, who supported adult baptism, he became convinced he needed to be re-baptized.

- When his brother was slain for his Anabaptist attempt to take over a monastery – Menno Simons became disturbed about the use and abuse of force and the part of some Anabaptists. This finally precipitated a full commitment to the Anabaptist cause but from a pacifist position. Of his conversion, Simon writes:

“My heart trembled within me. I prayed to God with sighs and tears that He would give to me, a sorrowing sinner, the gift of His grace, create within me a clean heart, and graciously through the merits of the crimson blood of Christ, forgive my unclean walk and frivolous easy life and bestow upon me wisdom, Spirit, courage, and a manly spirit so that I might preach.”

- From his ordination in 1537 until his death in 1561, Simons exerted tremendous influence on the Anabaptist tradition. In his theological masterpiece, Foundations, he lays out a theological agenda that influences the Believers Church Tradition to this day. Let’s turn to that theology.

II. Theological Themes of the Radical Reformation Crucial to the BCT a) The Concept of the “New Life”

- The radical reformation was very much about the “interiorization of salvation” For all the Radical Reformers salvation was “ipso facto” personal, experiential and individual.

- Their practice of adult baptism (thus Anabaptism) was premised on an experience of new birth and new life. Although Luther and Calvin referred to themselves as “born again” it was Menno Simons who popularized the phrase. 62

- Conversion, for Simons, was preceded by repentance and faith. Faith is the inward appropriation of the gospel. In conversion, says Simons, “the hearer is pierced and moved through the Holy Ghost with unusual regeneration, renewing, vivifying power.” b) The Infallible Word of God

- The Scriptures played a decisive role in Menno’s conversion. He says, “It is the ‘eternal Word of God which shall last forever’. He calls it a “spiritual seed” from which new life springs.

- Simons urged his readers not to trust in ancient traditions, papal decretals, imperial mandates, or “the wisdom and glosses of the learned ones”, but only in “God’s infallible Word”. His severe restrictions on liturgy and sacraments were based on the principle that what the Bible does not expressly command should not be permitted. Indeed, some of Menno’s followers took the Bible in extremely literal terms. As a result they were much more radical than Luther and Calvin in rejecting aspects of tradition. c) The Incarnate Word

- Simons strongly defended a Chalcedonian reading of the Incarnation against some of the Spiritualists and Evangelical Rationalists. “The entire Jesus Christ, both God and man, man and God, has his origin in heaven and not on earth.” He believed in both sinless ness and real humanity of Christ, and in the virgin birth. d) The True Church

- He said on his deathbed that nothing was so important to him as the church. Much of his writings were devoted to showing the true church as opposed to the false. The true church was an intentional community consisting of regenerate members who willingly embrace a life of discipleship in mutual covenant. Thus, he rejected the Calvinist, Lutheran and Catholic idea of the mixed church, i.e. the Augustinian concept.

- He further advocated a separation of church and state. While they pledged obedience to civil authorities they denied them obedience where they contravened Scripture.

- Rather than reform the church – as with Luther and Calvin – Simons wanted to restore the primitive church along New Testament lines. The New Testament church has to be restored according to the true apostolic rule and criterion.

63

- For him the church was a Gemeinde, or fellowship of believers, the true communion of saints. It had six characteristics.

1) An unadulterated pure doctrine. 2) Scriptural use of the Sacramental signs 3) Obedience of the Word. 4) Unfeigned brotherly love 5) A bold confession of God and Christ 6) Oppression and tribulation for the sake of the world e) Baptism - No issue was more central to Menno Simon’s concerns and the concerns of the Anabaptists. He writes, “for the sake of baptism, we are miserably abused, slandered, and persecuted by all men.”

- In 1529 Charles V, issued an imperial death penalty for all re-baptizers. They were accused of being Donatist who were also put to death.

- Simons has 3 affirmations re: baptism

1) Faith does not follow from baptism but baptism from faith. It is an outward sign consistent with an inward work of faith. 2) Infants are not capable of faith and repentance and should not be baptized. Faith had to be rational and comprehensible; infants fit neither. 3) Baptism is the public initiation of the believer into the life of radical discipleship, i.e. not regeneration but a radical break with the world and a decision to follow Christ in discipleship. f) The Lord’s Supper – 3 emphases stand out as defining features of Anabaptism.

i) The Supper is Non-sacramental ii) It is the sign or pledge of Christ’s love iii) It is the sign of Christian unity, love and peace.

64

THS 571 Session X Believers Church Tradition

The Movement Towards Enlightenment, Accommodation and Modernity: Its Importance for the Believer Church Tradition

Introductory Comments: - The enlightenment represented the dissolution of the Christian hegemony in the west. Voltaire’s diatribes influenced thousands – during his walk up a mountain in 1774, someone commented on the knowledge of God displayed in creation and he immediately quipped, “I know who God is but show me Christ?”

- The Enlightenment saw the dislocation of religion from the center of life to the periphery and man as a self assured knower put in its place. As a result, religion became a matter of individual conscience and experience.

I. The Challenge of the Modern Enlightenment to the Tradition

- The enlightenment represented a challenge to the Believers church tradition on many fronts. Herein I enumerate a few of the most important features. a) The Catholic defiance of Protestantism reasserted papal control in 1545-1563, through the Council of Trent.

- After the Reformation consolidated itself, the struggle for political control became in short order, violent, especially in northern England. The 30 years war (so called religious wars) ended with a decimation of the population (some put it at 10,000,000 dead), and a feeling of skepticism in regard to religion. At the same time the Catholic Church began the Spanish inquisition with frightening consequences. b) By the late 17th century religion found itself in what has been called the “crisis of the European mind.”

- On the one hand there was unprecedented religious revivals in England and the New World. On the intellectual scene there was a sustained attack on religion in science and philosophy. Key thinkers like Voltaire and Spinoza called the Reformation a period of “blind and bloody fanaticism, and barbarous cruelty”.

- They soon identified the belief in divine revelation as one of the sources of this violence. i.e. the Bible. They saw Christians as justifying their actions on the basis of “divine revelation”.

65 c) The Enlightenment rejected Christianity’s appeal to revelation as a unique source of knowledge in favor of secular reason.

- The task of humanity was to free itself from the authorities of Bible, Church and Clergy – Kant’s “sapare aude” was a call to “dare to know” against “Ecclesiastical superstition.” Reason was once again elevated and honored as the protector from subjectivism, prejudice and fanaticism, but now as an adversary to faith and not as a “handmaiden”, as with Aquinas.

- Reason – the free use of it, was humanity’ “coming of age.” Reason became an ideological vision to re-establish society and culture on an objective foundation called modernity. Reality was only that which could be established by reason; i.e. that which corresponded to the a priori categories of the mind, know to Kant as the transcendental categories of apperception.

- Eventually, through the progressive use of his reason, the modern man would come to a deeper meaning of his cosmos, his fellow humans and himself. All of this will be accomplished purely on the basis of reason alone. Social peace and utopia were within the grasp of humanity on this basis. “Driven by this new confidence, humanity freed itself from its old authoritarian and dogmatic patterns” (Phillips and Ockam, Family of Faith 223). This modern movement produced enormous cultural, political and social change

d) Enlightenment challenged the BCT on two critical fronts; Science and Philosophy

i) The challenge of natural science.

- The old Ptolemaic understanding of the universe in its Biblical cast dominated the medieval mind. This hierarchical world-view put the earth, (and therefore humanity) at the center of the created universe, overseen by a providential God. Nicholas Copernicus (15th C) and Galileo (16th C), challenged this view of the world using their new empirical method, that is knowledge gained through observation of experience. They discovered that the earth was neither motionless nor at the center, but at all times in motion and on the periphery of the galaxy.

- Newton’s Laws, (1675) demonstrated these proposals to be true on the macrocosmic and microcosmic level through the formulation of his laws of gravity. What was once chalked up to miracle was now considered a law of nature that could be verified, (the formula as later discovered by Einstein was F = C . M1.M2/S² which later led to his famous E=MC²). The spectacular success of science enthralled the average European , who had little education. Confidence in reason grew as a result. Alexander Pope once wrote:

“Nature and natures laws were hid in night, God said, let Newton be! And there was light” 66

- The scientific method quickly became the primary means for unraveling the mysteries of the universe. The Bible was shoved aside as irrelevant, and it now became an object of scientific study itself. The universe became a “closed universe” of a set natural laws, which could be discovered through human reason alone. If it could not be scientifically verified it was suspect at best, or rejected out of hand, at worst.

- Thus, all supernaturalism became suspect, including special revelation. To be sure Isaac Newton was a Christian; but others were not: e.g. Hume, Spinoza, Lessing, Goethe…etc. God became a convenient way to fill in the gaps, but only on Deistic terms, as a last resort explanation. He came in at the end, after a rational explanation. God was only needed when it could not be explained by reason – e.g. Kant’s moral imperative. Issues dealing with the miracles, resurrection and incarnation became suspect. ii) Couple this with the turn to knowing self in philosophy and the dye is cast. Religion is under great stress to explain its necessity and existence.

- With the advance in science came a shift in epistemology. Disturbed by the conflicting truth claims of religion and science, Rene Descartes (1596-1680), proposed a new method for obtaining religious certainty. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes took as his starting point the thinking self, summarized in the Latin phrase, “cogito ergo sum”. His discovery was arrived at through methodical, and methodological, doubt. Having doubted all, the only certainty was the doubting self. This was the first knowable principle. From there other rational principles, like God, could be worked out. Descartes’ method supported scientific endeavors but undermined religion despite his protest.

- In England, John Lock, (1632-1704) also sought a new epistemological framework, which ended in virtually the same place: i.e. the establishment of the thinking self. He employed an empiricist method, arguing from experience, and posited the experiential self as the source of knowledge. See his important Essays Concerning Human Understanding.

- Using this empiricism, he challenged many religious assumptions about the cosmos. Yet God was still demonstrable, according to Lock, by empirical means, though he could not be thought of as involved directly in created order; In sum he was essentially a deist. In his Reasonableness of Christianity, he reverses Aquinas’ rule, that reason must be consistent with special revelation and argues that revelation must be consistent with reason. Lock ended with an anti- supernatural, moralistic religion devoid of God, somewhat akin to Kant’s. Lock tied the belief in God to rational justification with serious consequences for Theology. When Deist like John Toland read Lock, they concluded that religion could only be real within the bounds of reason.

67

- By the time David Hume (1711-1776) arrives on the scene, he explodes this Deist moral religion with one fell swoop in his, Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion. He basically concluded, in this classic work of western philosophy, that the arguments for the existence of God put forward by Lock are untenable in light of reason, based as it is on empirical deductions from experience. Lock’s, and other Deists, prejudices toward Christianity would not permit reason to go all the way and deny God as a rationally provable entity. Therefore God was a product of this prejudice and not reason.

- The finishing touch in this process comes with Immanuel Kant’s, Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgment and “Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone”, (1774-1794), and his critical philosophies, Critique of Pure Reason, Practical Reason and Judgment. We know only what the mind permits to be empirically verifiable. We know things only as they appear (phenomena) not as they really are in them selves (Ding an Sich) (noumena). All rational beings structure experience in the same way (through the categories of transcendental apperception). Only what we experience can be knowable. Since we have no experience of God or revelation – we cannot know him, or it. “You cannot get there from here.” Religion, in its pure form, is simply the moral impulse or oughtness innate to humanity.

- While God, the soul and immortality transcend our experience and are thus unknowable, we must posit God and immortality to make the moral imperative meaningful, and true religion ignores “superstition” and develops this moral sense. The upshot is that Kant solidified the subjective turn in theology by identifying morality as the criterion for all valid theological claims. Consequently religion becomes not much more than our sense of morality. The “superstitious” aspects of religion, i.e. Revelation, Resurrection and Incarnation are simply dispensed with. God, now must be congruent with our rational estimate of him. We become autonomous – i.e. a law unto ourselves. This concept of autonomy, a product of the Reformation, will have continuing significance for Believers Church Theology.

II. The Challenge to the Christian Reading of History a) History, on the scientific and rational view, became uniform and interconnected.

- The model of history that emerges from the Enlightenment says that all events are interlocked in a sequence of cause and effect; past-present-future. Now the world becomes viewed as a self-existent entity in process of becoming towards an end point.

- G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) was one of the first to build a system on this basis. For Hegel history was not chronological events, but a process of the becoming of the “Absolute” (His name for God.). As history proceeds, the Absolute Spirit (Geist) evolves through various stages, from primitive culture to pure religion. Its 68

pattern is recognizable in every phase of history, in every culture. As the Spirit comes into self realization it reaches its apex in Germanic Christianity. Truth is derived from this historical process but is only ever provisional. All religions possess aspects of this truth, but through them all the Absolute is still in process.

- His Philosophy of History attempted to chronicle this process of the Absolute coming into conscientization. Each religion displays either a good or negative knowledge (consciousness) of this. While Christianity cannot be the soul source for truth, German Protestant Christianity is the highest form of this evolving Spirit. This Geist will eventually evolve into pure philosophy, and arrive at the Absolute. The Bible is merely one episode along the way and has only partial truth. Hegel did identify Christianity as the apex, at the moment, but it may well, or most likely will, evolve beyond that in the Spirit’s coming to be as the Absolute. a) This intellectual and scientific ferment gave rise to a social-scientific phenomena that would have enormous ramifications for Christianity and the orthodox tradition.

- Social Darwinism (Charles Darwin, 1809-1882), combined with this Hegelian evolutionary approach to history and truth, issued in the ideology of evolution as a scientific explanation of the human. Darwin’s, On the Origin of the Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, was enormously popular and equally condemned. Darwin reduced all philosophy, history and theology to a simple socio biological process that explained human existence.

- All of these developments put Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity and the BCT, on the defensive for a long time, (we still are in many ways). From this point on social and scientific methods considered the Biblical worldview as outmoded. Freud (1856-1939) called Christianity, “wish fulfillment” – Feuerbach called it “human self-projection”. Freud’s essay, “The Future of An Illusion” (1927) is a stark call to humanity to throw off religion altogether. Karl Marx, at the turn of the 20th century, called religion “the opiate of the people.” This ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ has played no small part in the postmodern nihilistic philosophies of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida and Foucault. b) The Rise of Biblical Criticism.

- During the rise of modernity, the challenge against Biblical revelation, above all, strikes at the heart of Christianity. It began with the humanist approach to the Bible in the Renaissance – i.e. the textual tradition. Early in the 17th century textual criticism became a tool for criticizing the Bible – after Leibniz applied it to Scripture. Now, the grand narrative had to be “demystified” and its repugnant elements eliminated.

69

- With the rise of the modern understanding of rationality, history and science, the Bible must now be placed within that system. The Old Testament was subsequently criticized in terms of sources such as the literary theory of J.E.P.D. put forward by Graph/Wellhausen. As a result, the Old Testament came to be viewed as a composite document of disparate sources, with no theological unity. Contradictions and inadequacies in terms of science and history were pointed out. In the New Testament source criticism began in earnest when the quest for the historical Jesus turned up negative results. (see Albert Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus). In the History of Dogma, scholars began to uncover “serious Greek corruptions” of the dogmatic interpretation of theology – Adolf von Harnack’s 6 vol. History of Dogma was dedicated to this task. In the end, the Bible simply represented the mythical worldview … the rest of Biblical criticism traded on this single principle. E.g. Bultmann and co.

III. The process flowing out all this is called “Secularization”. a) The meaning of secularism comes for the Latin, seculum.

- It was used of clergy who moved from the monastery to the clerical or normal life. It became a catchword for the process of the modernization of western culture. The progress of modernity happens through secularization, i.e. the taking over of what used to be sacred. It involves the loss of influence of the religious, in the public spheres of life. Science, politics, business and technology are viewed as non-religious entities as is Art, Literature, etc. b) In the early years of North American settlement the Puritans viewed the world as caught up in the story of God’s redemptive history.

- Communities formed around the Church in New England. Christian values were taught and inculcated in believers. North America became a Christian-religious stronghold precisely when religion in Europe was on the wane. Up until, that is, the European Enlightenment began to be felt here.

- In less than 250 years, a largely Christian North America has gone from a Christian religious heritage that has been identified as the reason for prosperity, to a byword on the public scene. It is now relegated and restricted to individual, private, religion.

In Sum: Why is this so today?

- Very simply, the Enlightenment and social scientific revolution has de-centered the Church and the diversity of Evangelical religious beliefs that were our heritage, including Believers Church history and theology. The separation of Church and State has been interpreted as the loss of any right to a voice for Christianity. Truly we have come to a phase in history that is “post Christian.”

70 c) The cultural dominance of Social Science has demystified the cosmos.

- Furthermore, science has reduced our world to a set of controllable quantifiable principles. There is no need for God when science, medicine and politics will do. The “Americanization” of religious emotion in terms of the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” have replaced the Biblical emphasis on “sin, self denial, and the pursuit of God.” Religious beliefs, as doctrinal and confessional truths, are privatized and banned from the public forum altogether, including the Church itself.

IV. Responses to the Challenges of Modernity: How have we responded? a) Withdrawal

- The Catholic Church responded by withdrawing from modernity. 1864, Pius IX published a “Syllabus of Errors of Modernity”. The papacy retreated and had very little influence on modernity. The Vatican II of 1960’s was an attempt to re-enter the modern debate, but in such a way that it has become susceptible to its caustic influences. b) Accommodation – Protestant Liberalism

- Modern theology on the continent, embraced modernism and attempted to reinterpret Christianity in its light. Christianity was adjusted to accommodate the culture. F.D.E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834), was the locus for this initial accommodation. (See his, Speeches on Religion). Theologians quickly conceded the error ridden Scriptures. They agreed, for the most part, with Kant that religion was essentially moral.

- They also affirmed without reservation the findings of science. They saw as their task the retrieval of the Essence of Christianity – usually some aspect of morality or humanity emerged as its “essence”. Thus Albrecht Ritschl, (1822-1889) reduced Christian faith to ethics. Adolf Von Harnack, (1851-1930) reduced Christianity to love of God and man. Finally, they all conceded to the privatization of religion. c) Protestant Liberalism in America

- By the 1920-30’s America was engulfed in this. The Universities of Harvard, Yale and Chicago went the way of Liberalism. Even Princeton was perceived to have gone Liberal. Walter Rauschenbush, (1861-1918) is an example of this Liberal Protestantism in Baptist circles. For a while they gained the hegemony. But there was a counter culture, and that’s where the Evangelical Tradition comes in. But we were still shaped by these forces.

71

THS 571 Session XI Believers Church Tradition The Movement Toward Evangelicalism

Introductory Comments:

- While all of this enlightenment was happening, other concurrent revivals of the Christian faith in Protestantism were as well. These became known as the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings. These movements were influenced by many factors, including the Magisterial and Radical Reformations, Puritanism, Pietism, Methodism and Moravianism.

- Together with the enlightenment and Liberalism, these movements had a tremendous influence on Evangelicalism and Evangelical tradition and subsequent Believers Church Theology. The movement was from revivalism to fundamentalism to Pentecostalism in one direction and Evangelicalism in another.

I. The First Great Awakening a) Puritan Covenantal Theology was influential in the Americas

- In American Puritan theology, God was seen as the one who had entered into agreement with humanity. The people of the Covenant were therefore, quite naturally “known by their fruit”. (Matt. 17:6) Salvation was determined by a person’s “bent”, that is, one could determine ones election by fruitfulness. In the American Colonies only the “proven elect” could have fellowship in the church.

- By 1660 there was a set of evidences to establish this fact, and elders applied the test with vigor. One was either a child of halfway members or full members. By 1710 the more primitive and vibrant Puritanism of England was dead. Religion became, as in Europe, a matter of the state; that is, legislated by the State, re: education. Spiritual apathy was pervasive in the early 1700’s, especially in the New England states.

- In this milieu a revival struck that revolutionized the Americas, both literally and figuratively. It began in the 1720’s with some Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian ministers who preached a more evangelical message.

72 b) At Massachusetts, a young preacher named Jonathan Edwards, a Puritan Congregationalist, began to preach.

- In the midst of increasing immorality and Arminian style religions, Edwards witnessed what he called, “a surprising work of God”. His sermons often focused on topics like justification, repentance, sin and the church. His preaching was to the “respectable towns people” and was a call to evaluate their lives in the light of these principles. As a Calvinist, Edwards saw all of this as a result of God’s sovereign action. Because we are dead in our sin and helpless. He also said that revival is a miracle work of a gracious God. His “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is famous for its effect on its listeners. To this day he is considered the greatest of the American produced theologians. c) The Calvinist George Whitfield was even more influential.

- He preached in both England and America and was quite influential in Maine. He preached to the lower crust of society on similar themes. Whitfield emphasized the need to experience conversion, repentance and regeneration. He immediately tied conversion to education and raised funds for schools for the poor in Georgia, etc. His efforts peaked in 1741-44. Shortly after Whitfield’s career ended, spiritual decline began to set in. Eventually Edwards and Whitfield became associated with a fanatic who sought emotional shows such as barking, jerking and fainting. His name was John Davenport. The Harvard Society warned that this contravened reason and harmed the peace and purity of the church. Edwards distanced himself from Davenport, as did Whitfield.

- Still for all, churches grew, Calvinism became more influential and a renewed emphasis on experience was achieved. Unfortunately, the 1st Great Awakening also promoted controversy. Theological divisions and denominational splits ensued, especially with regard to Calvinism and Arminianism. Another issue was the relationship between theology and experience. The so-called “New Lights” followed Edwards’s emphasis on Religious affections. The so called “Old Lights” followed Charles Chauncey and railed against any kind of emotionalism in religion; many Baptists came out of this new light movement.

- The Positive contributions were included an emphasis on lay involvement and congregational church government. By the tail end of the 1700’s the Deism of Ethan Allen and Thomas Pain was being felt at Harvard and Yale. By the 1780’s church attendance was again in decline and the enlightenment had arrived in full force.

73

II. The Second Great Awakening (1790-1820) a) Just before the turn of the 18th century churches in the Americas were once again ripe for revival.

- Yale University, which had become rather dry and rationalistic, saw a revival in the 1790’s. Timothy Dwight had instituted a new program in Biblical Studies at Yale. A revival began to take shape and had enormous consequences for western settlement b) Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian ministers took the message of salvation to the frontier.

- In the east, theological battle lines were drawn between Calvinists and Arminians, while in the west they both brought in the harvest, often together. Arminianism became a dominant theology leading to the individualization of holiness and faith. The message of salvation was now preached with lots of promises and few stipulations.

- Baptists and Methodists were best at offering “condensed” religion. By the early 1800’s the Baptists were the single largest denomination in North America. Methodism followed close behind. The Calvinist finally brought up the rear. c) The emphasis of the second Great Awakening was the idea of “seeking ones salvation”.

- Christian faith and practice was now fully influenced by individualism, revivalism and pietism. Dissenter’s in the east reacted against this brand of individualistic salvation. For them it was too democratic, emotional, “un-churchly”, and not really Calvinistic enough.

III. The Urban Revivals of 1840-1955 a) The original, and most prominent figure, of this kind of Revivalism was Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875).

- He represents the transition from rural to urban revivalism. He perfected revivalism into a technique. Finney started out as a lawyer and argued like one, even preached like one. Later he became a professor and president at Oberlin College.

- Finney is famous for his cottage prayer meetings and the “anxious bench” where sinners came to repent. The meetings were long and protracted and followed by alter calls. Finney said that, contrary to Edwards, “revival is not a miracle or dependent upon a miracle in any sense, it is a uniquely philosophical result of the 74

right use of means.” Thus, preaching must be done for persuasion. This style of preaching soon became the norm for Congregationalist and those in the Evangelical Tradition, including Baptists.

- He also insisted, like the Puritans, that ones salvation could be discovered by ones “bent” or social works and moral action. Thus, he stressed holiness understood as “entire sanctification”, a development of Wesleyan theology. He was optimistically pre-millennial and believed his revival would help usher in the rule of God.

b) This kind of religious and emotional ferment continued through a Chicago business man named D. L. Moody (1837-1899).

- Dwight L. Moody was a congregational layman and former shoe sales man. He organized many heavily attended revival campaigns. His message was simple and clear and he always preached for decision. His sermons often revolved around the three R’s – Ruin, Redemption and Regeneration.

- Moody changed the face of religion in America and influenced revivalism for 75 years. He became the model for fundamentalists of the 1920’s, in preaching and theology. Moody stressed biblical infallibility, millennialism, holiness teaching, and separation from the world. He also placed a high priority on church, as the story of the coal of fire and the reluctant parishioner illustrates. . - Moody was a precursor to fundamentalism in that he was nondenominational but maintained relations among many denominations. He was also strongly anti- culture. He saw culture as essentially decadent. The church was the church militant, against culture in every way. In his view the world would grow worse and worse and his task was to “save all he could”.

- So, in sum, revivalism in North America has always included a mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism; social work and evangelism, separation and enculturation. It had roots in Puritanism, Pietism and the two Great Awakenings. It also tended to look back at the great “revivals” of the past and claim them as their heritage. It emphasizes personal commitment, emotional intensity in salvation and holiness. The church must radically separate itself from the world and yet save all of it. It was marked by individualism, volunteerism, pietism, democracy, and free enterprise despite the decadence of culture.

75

c) All of this fostered the rise of several social movements

- For instance a woman named Emma Whittemore, (1850-1931) started a ministry to young girls on the streets of New York City. Her ministry became known as the “Door of Hope” which grew to 100 chapters across America.

- One could also cite Jonathan Blanchard, Theodore Weld and Wesleyan- Methodist, Phoebe Palmer. After the Civil War the YMCA and Salvation Army, under the leadership of William Booth emerged as social works. The Salvation Army taught that acts of charity are the best forms of evangelism.

- By the late 1800’s and early 1900’s some Revivalist converts began to stress the need for political action. Other groups worked with the homeless, alcoholics and jobless. “The record of evangelical social action in an era when social reform was not necessarily popular was as impressive as that of almost any other group or country” (Family of Faith). Long before the Liberal Social Gospel movement arose under W. Rauschenbusch, Evangelicals were leading the way in social work. With the rise of Liberal Protestant emphasis on Biblical criticism and social gospel however, the conservatives were forced on the theological defensive. This became known as Fundamentalism.

IV. The Rise of Fundamentalism. 1820’s-1950’s

When modernity began to threaten orthodoxy a theological battle erupted. a) Dispensationalism became a primary factor in the rise of Fundamentalism.

- J. N. Darby (1800-1882), was a Father of Fundamentalism, of sorts. He single handedly created the theology of “Dispensationalism” in his famous work, The Fundamentals. His views were propagated by C. I. Scofield in his famous annotated Bible, massive in scope and size. This Bible became one of the most influential in North America. Dispensationalism divided time into seven dispensations in which the sovereign plan of God is laid out in amazing detail. However, dispensationalism, bifurcates the people of God into Israel and the church. Each with a different means of salvation in history. The Old Testament is dispensation of the Law and Israel. New Testament is the dispensation of grace and church. Darby placed a strong emphasis on pre-millennial return of Christ. Dispensationalism was strongly mixed with Calvinism. It was extremely pessimistic and expected immanent judgment. It claimed to be the most literal and accurate interpretation of the Bible. It was eventually combined with certain Princeton theologians (C. Hodge and B. B. Warfield) to forge a fundamentalist emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture and Pre millennial return of Christ.

76

b) Princeton Theology – A second mitigating factor in Fundamentalism.

- Princeton was a seminary that emphasized Calvinism as a biblical and rational repudiation of all forms of Arminianism, especially of the Finney variety. The seminary was founded in 1812. Its faculty included Charles Hodge (1797-1887), Alexander Hodge, B.B. Warfield (1851-1921), and J. Greshem Maclean (1881- 1937). They took as their confessional stance the Westminster Confession of Faith. The concept of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy was considered an essential orthodox doctrine. They tried to combat the theological liberalism of Europe with a doctrine of inerrancy and rational proofs. Warfield developed a theology of verbal inspiration, and Biblical inerrancy in the autographs (B. B. Warfield The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible). Their concern was that soteriology rest on a firm basis, else it prove a false hope. But they were also concerned to protect the scientific and rationalistic nature of theology. They employed Scottish Realism, a kind of inductive empiricism, to do this, (Thomas Reid). They also saw the Bible as a set of facts requiring formulation into spiritual laws. The Bible is just sitting there waiting to have these laws discovered. c) Holiness Teaching as a third root of Fundamentalism.

- The influence of Methodism, Pietism and Puritanism has bequeathed to us an emphasis on sanctification as holiness and purity, in Evangelical and Baptist circles. In fundamentalism this idea of holiness was adopted but with a Calvinist understanding.

- Eventually, break-off groups began to experience a “second blessing” and “baptism with the Holy Spirit” as an aid to holiness, as an outgrowth of Weslyan “entire sanctification” doctrine. So also the Keswick movement in England in 1875; The Classical Pentecostal movement in Topeka, Kansas, 1910, and Azuza Street, 1909-10. All of these movements emphasized the same Holy Spirit experience. Holiness and “the fundamentals” were equally important to all of these movements. A relationship of suspicion and distrust between them remains to this day. d) Militant opposition to modernity. A unifying root?

- Modern Protestantism stressed accommodation. Fundamentalists viewed this as a betrayal of the gospel, a cultural acquiescence. Where they denied the supernatural, fundamentalists defended it. Where they questioned the Bible, fundamentalists developed doctrines to defend it. Where they permitted moral laxity, fundamentalists developed strict moralism. Where they promoted a mixed church, fundamentalists insisted on purity of the elect. Where they promoted a salvation by infant baptism, fundamentalists insisted on adult faith.

77

- Between 1910-1915 a set of doctrines based on Darby’s The Fundamentals, were produced. 300,000 copies were distributed and R. A. Torrey was their editor. The five fundamentals were as follows:

1. The inerrancy of Scripture. 2. The virgin birth of Christ. 3. Substitutionary Atonement. 4. The bodily resurrection of Christ. 5. The pre-millennial coming of Christ.

d) The rise of Fundamentalism on the public scene.

- In 1922, H. E. Fosdick preached a sermon titled, “Shall the Fundamentalist Win”. He insisted that modernism demanded a new interpretation of scripture. The sermon, a masterpiece of rhetoric, infuriated the Fundamentalists. Shortly after, the Scopes trial in Dayton further drew lines – Scopes vs. William Jennings Bryan. The press had a field day with the Fundamentalists and they lost. Eventually the Fundamentalists had to fight a denominational battle. The Princeton Presbyterians defended the work of Charles Briggs, and became a fully Liberal School, in the mind of many Fundamentalists. G. Greshem Machen broke with the faculty of Princeton Seminary in 1933. He was eventually defrocked by his Presbytery. He later went to start Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.

- After 1925 the Fundamentals and Fundamentalism fell into disrepute. They retreated and separated themselves off from the Liberals. 3 characteristics emerged:

1. They separated themselves from secular and theological constitutions of Liberal persuasion. 2. They became increasingly dominated by dispensational themes. 3. They retreated from social action.

- Out of this historical ferment, from the reformation to fundamentalism, Evangelicalism the Believers Church Tradition takes definite shape.

78

THS 571 Session XII Believers Church Tradition: The Consolidation of the Believer Church Theological Tradition

Introductory Comments: - The forgoing analysis anticipates the movement of the BCT from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism in the 1920’s-40’s. The Scopes trial of 1928 led to the ghettoizing of Fundamentalism. In the 1940’s a new coalition began to form – known as Neo-Evangelicalism.

- This movement produced many capable thinkers. C. Okanga and J. Barr are great examples. Two of the most formative thinkers were Bernard Ramm and Carl Henry. Both of these Baptist theologians tried to forge and ecumenical Evangelicalism. The Ramm-Henry tradition had as its goal the infiltration of modern theology, rather than separation from it. Both wanted to move beyond Fundamentalism while remaining true to Orthodox belief. Both shared an uncompromising commitment to the authority of Scripture

I. C. F. H. Henry (1913- 2002): An Apologetic Theology in the Baptist Tradition - Without doubt, Henry was the most prominent theologian in Baptist Tradition of 20-21st century. He was hailed in 1977 as “the prime interpreter of Evangelical Theology, one of its leading theoreticians, and the unofficial theologian for the entire tradition.” (Bob Patterson c.f. Time Magazine 109, no. 7; Feb.14, 1977). a) Apologist to Modern Culture

- Henry’s stance against Fundamentalism is the most important impulse of Neo- Evangelicalism. His short diatribe, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1941) exploded like a bombshell among conservative evangelicals. His intentions were to distance true “Evangelicalism” from ultra conservative, separatist, fundamentalism. It succeeded in spades! b) Evangelical engagement vs. Fundamentalist separation

- Doctrinally, Henry remained conservative – but not a Fundamentalist. “Rather than reforming fundamentalism doctrinally, Henry sought to rid it of the ‘harsh temperament’, the ‘spirit of loveless ness and strife’, he saw displayed in its leaders and theologians” (e.g. G. H. Clarke). He criticized the Fundamentalist lack of ethics and a social agenda and their retreat from society in general.

- As a result fundamentalism, in his eyes, failed to be a gospel people and as such could not effectively proclaim it. To remedy this Henry called for a reengagement 79

with culture in terms of social ethics and intellectual rigor. Biblical Christianity should foster both personal salvation and social transformation. This meant not only a reactive ministry but also a proactive plan to eliminate injustice. This stance put him at odds with his fundamentalist colleagues like H. Van Till and G. Clarke.

- Henry did not go so far as to embrace the liberal social agenda. He continued to insist that social change should come about through individual salvation and transformation. “The church must rely on spiritual regeneration for the transformation of society.” He also charged Evangelicalism with abandoning its intellectual task. He was right here. He called Evangelicalism to shape society through good theology, social action, and gospel proclamation. He envisioned nothing less than the reemergence of “historic Christianity” as a vital “world ideology” because “the redemptive message has implications for all of life.” This was his passionate desire, which he received from his Baptist connections. c) Evangelical Spokesman

- This challenge catapulted him into the Evangelical limelight. He became the intellectual voice for Neo-Evangelicalism, almost its sole voice, except for Ramm. He was well suited for this as Erickson points out;

“He is Calvinistic, but moderately so. He is non-charismatic, but not militantly so. He is non-dispensational, but not anti-dispensational. He is a Baptist but not polemical towards non-Baptists. His stance on doctrinal issues is firm but not rancorous.” (looking for source still)

- Henry is a spokesperson for the Baptist Tradition because of his personal experience of a new birth. He was “converted” at age 24 through a Methodist friend. In the fall of 1935, he entered Wheaton College to study Theology. The interdenominational environment at Wheaton spurred him to his new Evangelicalism. There he came into contact with Billy Graham, Harold Lindsell and G. H. Clarke. He launched his academic career in 1942 at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

- Later he was asked to come to Fuller where and Evangelical Renaissance was to begin under E. J. Carnell and Ockanga He wrote 9 books in 10 years at Fuller! Soon he followed his earlier inclinations as a journalist founding Christianity Today. He was kicked off its editorial board in 1967 and began to write his 6 volume “God, Revelation and Authority”.

d) As a theological commentator few could compare with Henry in Evangelicalism.

- Rather than a systematization, he became an essayist commentator on current theological trends in and out of Evangelicalism. In this way he engaged both conservatives and moderns. As such, he attempted to give Evangelicals a clear 80

voice in modernity. He was often appalled at the Evangelical intellectual malaise and rightly criticized it.

- Henry’s mission was to alter this and offer a relevant Evangelical theology, which was also quite Baptistic. At the same time his criticisms of modern theology were equally incisive. He feared however, that his Evangelical renaissance would falter. In his theological commentary, Henry voiced the need for the kind of “creative interaction and dialogue that advanced evangelical penetration into “what in his estimation was becoming and increasingly decadent society. e) Thus one could call Henry a Rationalist Apologist.

- To do this, evangelicals had to set forth an intelligibly credible case. Their apologetic must be a rational engagement of religious truth. Henry developed this rational method in his, God, Revelation and Authority. Vol. 2-6 then put forward 15 propositions rationally set forth and defended. Revelation as the point of departure is the basis of our knowledge of God. God is the God who shows Himself in the Bible. f) Thus, Revelation and Reason are integrally connected.

- Henry was convinced that Scripture was the sole source for this rational theology. He was equally convinced that God both acted in history and spoke to humanity. However, God’s speaking takes precedence to God’s acting. He could not view them as simultaneous. As speech the Bible is God’s objective self-revelation, not a subjective self-unveiling. As a good Calvinist, he accepted the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, in relation to soteriology, more than anthropology. But he denied that reason was thereby also totally corrupt, unlike Calvin.

- Reason was a divine gift, which enable rational comprehension of Revelation. Thus, there is no need for irrational subjectivity. Therefore, understanding precedes faith as a necessary prerequisite, contra Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Barth and Ramm. One could gain knowledge of God without being born again, but only a rational knowledge. The human “will” is the component most affected by sin, not reason. This revelation is primarily informational and prepositional. “God’s revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptual verbal form.” Thus Revelation in the Scripture is objective, conceptual, intelligible and coherent. g) The divine foundation for rational Revelation then is the divine λογος who forges the link between God and humanity as God’s self-revelation.

- Henry affirmed that the λογος is the “transcendentally given”, in history as event and word. Like Barth he bemoaned the loss of sense of a transcendent God. Unlike Barth, he proposes that our creation in God’s image gave us the rational capability needed to perceive the transcendent God in Revelation. A modern view 81

according to some. If theology is the explication of this rational Revelation, then the Bible is the central authority for theology. Barth would say this as well. It provides the foundation for the entire world-view. Thus, it can never be diluted, errant or fallible. It is inspired, inerrant and trustworthy for all truth. Here he adopted Warfield’s view of the inerrant Autographs. But he saw the inerrancy debate as a distraction from the trace task of theology. h) Henry’s shaping of Evangelical Theology

- Henry shaped Evangelical Theology into a cognitive rational enterprise that places priority on reason over experience and knowledge over faith. Henry was instrumental in the triumph of this formal principle of Evangelicalism. He also embodied a post-fundamentalist Neo-Evangelical concern for a bold engagement with modern culture. His desire was to bring the reformation forward to the present.

II. Bernard Ramm (1926-1992). Apologetic theology in dialogue. a) Ramm’s Pilgrimage

- He too, like Henry, wanted to infiltrate and not separate from culture. Ramm desired to bring Evangelical theology into dialogue with culture for its transformation. His pilgrimage was sparked by what he perceived as the inability of his fundamentalist roots to absorb the findings of modernity, some of which could not be denied out of hand.

- Consequently, his engagement with modern science led him away from fundamentalism or “obscuration-ism”. See his After Fundamentalism on this. How then, asks Ramm, should Evangelical theology engage modernity? Answer, Theologically! b) Ramm’s approach to modern scientific culture.

- In his early years Ramm wanted to become a scientist. However, in the early 1930’s he had a conversion experience. After his university studies (1938) Ramm entered the BD program at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary – a conservative NBC School. After two short pastorates he took up a post at Biola. He did his PhD in Philosophy of Science in 1950, U of Southern California. He soon produced his first major work in theology, The Christian View of Science. c) Ramm’s evidentialist apologetics came out of his scientific training.

- Rather than following the presuppositionalism of Henry and Van Till, he followed an “evidentialist” approach based on verifiable data. A proper apologetics, he argued, must be based on revelation as set down in the Scriptures. Theology must, on this basis, demonstrate the factuality of Christianity.

82

d) In his “Christian view of Science” Ramm criticizes the fundamentalist withdrawal from Scientific endeavor.

- He considers their views of science “unwholesome” and not in the best interest of Evangelicalism. He called Evangelicals back to a view of God as both Creator and Redeemer. He claimed that true science and Christianity could agree. These harmonies between science and faith were precursors to belief.

- Yet, this harmony involved suggestions that parts of the Bible were culturally conditioned and could therefore be overlooked in its relation to scientific harmony. e) The turn to theology, proper.

- Ramm eventually turned from Apologetics to Theology as the source for the engagement of culture. The following summarizes his most important theological contributions.

i) Biblical Authority – The pattern of religious authority.

- Ramm’s engagement of scripture and authority attempts to demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith. His intent was to chart a middle course between the subjectivity of modernity and the objectivity of fundamentalism. Thus, the center of divine revelation was God’s speech act in Jesus Christ. The inspired Scripture, together with the Holy Spirit illuminated reader could achieve this theological knowledge. Thus, revelation acted upon the believer in an objective and subjective fashion. This he claims, correctly I think, is the balanced view of Calvin and the Reformation.

- The Protestant principle of authority is “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures which are the product of the Spirit’s revelatory and inspiring action.” The primary principle of authority, “God in His own self-disclosure”, produces the principle of authority–the Spirit speaking in and through the Scriptures. As a result, final authority lies neither in the Book itself, nor in the Spirit, but in their combination in revelation, which the Bible contains and through which the Spirit effects illumination.

- Inspiration is a byproduct of Revelation and preserves Revelation in a trustworthy and sufficient form. Thus, both the Liberals and Fundamentalists are wrong. The fundamentalist missed the full reformation doctrine of inspiration. They equated the “word” with the Bible and lost the Spirit. They, fundamentalists, sought to prove the faith on the same grounds as modernity. “The temptation of Biblicism is that it can speak of the inspiration of the Scriptures apart from the Lord they 83

enshrine … There can be no formal doctrine of inspiration; only a Christ centered doctrine of inspiration.” After Fundamentalism.

- Thus, he began to retract his apologetic stance. Now “individual facts no longer constitute effective knowledge”. Christianity is the best of all postulates not the best proposition. ii) Ramm agrees with Barth that “if something external to the Word of God (reason or nature) is necessary to establish the Word of God as true, then it is greater than the Word of God.”

- He later criticized Barth but went on to study under him at Basel in 1954. He finally re-warmed to Barth and confessed a great appreciation in his After Fundamentalism (1983). Barth freed him from the “futility and intellectual bankruptcy” of Apologetics. This gave him a renewed appreciation for Historical Theology. It also gave him a way to correlate the critical study of Scripture with divine inspiration. He helped Ramm realize that the way a portion of Scripture came to be written did not invalidate it as the Word of God.

- In the Bible we do not have a one-to-one correlation of the Word of God to language. Rather God’s word is “refracted” through its accommodation to human language. As far as he was concerned, the current stress on “propositions” in Evangelical Theology is “but an alternate version of the Hegelian theory of a pure and conceptual language.”

- For Ramm, Barth’s method had ultimate appeal – he was a kindred spirit. For Ramm, Barth demonstrated how one could be an intellectually responsible Christian in the face of the enlightenment without making the same concessions that the liberals made. As Ramm put it – “Barth’s theology is a restatement of Reformed Theology written in the aftermath of the enlightenment but not capitulating to it.” After Fundamentalism iii) Ramm’s Constructive Theology

- Theology is possible because it is related to God’s self-revelation on Christ. The theologian does not treat God in Himself but God in His revelation. Theology had limits, namely, divine incomprehensibility and human sinfulness.

- Ramm and Henry share a concern for theology’s engagement of culture. They also share a concern for apologetics. But, they disagree on the issue of theology as objective or subjective. Ramm is a warning to us that rationalism can become too self-assured. Theology is its own discipline and can stand outside of science and culture on its own intentional basis.

84

III. The Neo-Evangelical Synthesis a) Erickson (1932- ) a student of Henry and Ramm i) Erickson’s development

- Clearly the mantle of leadership in Evangelical theology has fallen on the shoulders of Millard J. Erickson. His 3 volume “Christian Theology” has become the standard text for many seminary students in North America. Dockery described him as “the most outstanding writing theologian in the evangelical world”, which I think is a little over the top. Bloesch is just as prolific, and a much better writer of theology.

- Erickson was raised in a Swedish Baptist family on a Minnesota farm. He was converted as a youth through “an unemotional experience”. He came under Henry’s influence while at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Chicago. He did his PhD under William Hordern ( a neo-orthodox) at Northwestern University. He later taught at Wheaton, Bethel Seminary, Southwestern Baptist, Western Baptist, and Truett.

- In its initial phase Erickson’s theology was typically Neo-Evangelical and somewhat apologetic in its tone and emphases. His goals were the same as Henry and Ramm, to set out a theology that was evangelical, engaged in the contemporary discussion, Biblically grounded and relevant.

- Early on in his career he was influenced by Paul Tillich’s theological method of correlation . He was also influenced by the neo-orthodox theology mediated through his mentor William Hordern. However, it was Ramm who was most formative in the early stages of his career. Grenz writes, “ above all, sitting under Ramm at Bethel Seminary, had deeply affected the young Swedish Baptist. Through Ramm, Erickson had come under the tutelage of the theological leader of the Neo- Evangelical movement, including Carl Henry and E. J. Carnell.”

- Out of this experience came his first book called “The New Evangelical Theology” which was essentially a defense of its basic thrust as it came to expression in Henry, Ramm, and Carnell.

ii) The positive contribution of Neo-Evangelicalism

- Erickson saw great promise in Neo-Evangelicalism because it offered an intellectually respectable Theology of the Christian faith, while trying to reconcile the left and right in evangelicalism.

- About fundamentalism he writes that it “developed a defensive mentality. A harsh and uncharitable spirit came to predominate…. Within its own ranks, internal 85

suspicion and bickering over minor points of doctrine increased.” Erickson saw Neo- evangelicalism as a solution to this fundamentalist negativism because it held on to the Fundamental conviction that God and his word were authoritative for all of created reality and human behavior.

- As Grenz notes, “the new evangelicals agreed that because human sin distorts the revelation of God in nature, the primary datum for the knowledge of God is biblical revelation, not philosophical evidences which can only be secondary and supportive. Although God’s special revelation is a past occurrence, this revelation has been preserved through inspiration, which Erickson describes as the supernatural influence of the spirit in the writing of scripture that renders the writings ‘an accurate record of the revelation’, so that what the biblical writers wrote was the very word of God.” But the justification of this word as the word of God must be based on the fact that, as Ramm suggests, “the Neo-Evangelical conviction that the Bible is the word of God stems from the internal testimony of the Spirit.”

iii) Going beyond the Fathers of Neo-Evangelicalism

- Erickson also criticized his mentors for not doing enough to protect the doctrine of inerrancy from the “coefficient of the infinite elasticity of words.” He accuses Carnell of completely redefining it such that it has lost its original meaning. He also complained that they failed to keep abreast of the most recent advances in the Sciences and Social Sciences. He also took them to task for not pursuing a more systematic treatment of orthodox Christian doctrine.

- Thus his “Christian Theology” which, together with his 3 volume reader in contemporary theology, is a major contribution to the revival of Systematic Theology in Evangelical circles. Ramm will eventually fall out of favor with Erickson because he sees him as a catalyst for the “dangerous movement” known as “post-conservativism.”

b) Clark Pinnock (1937) Henry Protégé to Theological Pilgrim

See my article on Pinnock in Semper Reformandum, (Paternoster, 2004), titled: “The Inclusivist and Pluralist appeal to General Revelation: A Systematic Theological Appraisal.”

86 c) Grenz and the transitioning of Evangelicalism ( a Rammite)

See my article on Grenz’s theology in Scottish Journal of Theology 57, 3, 2004, titled, Culture, Community and Commitments: A Response to the Theology of Stanley Grenz.

87

God in His Revelation

Introductory Comments a) The Doctrine of Revelation in Scripture and Tradition - Scripture makes it clear that it claims to speak the very Word of God in terms of His sovereignty and His will for His creation. Scholars may quibble about the details of certain passages, but the Scriptures are overwhelmingly claim to be God’s self-revelation. Whether we believe the Scriptures or not is quite beside the point in respect to the claims it makes for itself.

- In tradition, the doctrine of revelation has enjoyed less certainty as an ecclesial doctrine. It has been one of the key issues of debate, for and against, since the 2nd century engagement with heresy. Though the orthodox Tradition has always affirmed divine revelation, it has always struggled with the felt need to bring in the so-called handmaids of philosophy, reason, tradition and experience to confirm its basic truth claims. In doing so, theology has often opened itself up to being swallowed up by one of these so-called handmaids. Achieving a balanced doctrine of revelation remains a central concern for the church. As we shall see, I think a balanced doctrine is achievable, but not without faith and a recognition of human rational limitations. b) The central debate has been the question of relationship between human reason and divine revelation.

- The history of Christian theology is, in some sense, a history of the loss and recovery, from time to time, of the doctrine of revelation in the face of human reason. Modernity, with its emphasis on human reason, has had the upper hand since the Enlightenment. But the postmodern critique of modern reason claims to have dethroned this modern idea of the rational imperial self. In the long run, this claim of Post-modernity may be over stated; still it has served well to point out to us (even if via negativa) the need for a more Biblically centered doctrine of revelation. c) Thus, we should offer a basic working definition as a sort of pivot around which the following sessions will center.

- That makes this definition one of the most important statements you will hear and read in this class. As a working definition we will be employing one of the most influential creeds in Evangelical and Reformed theology, The Westminster Confession, according to which revelation is:

88

“The whole council of God. It concerns all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life. It is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of man.” WC 1.6 paraphrase.

- As we proceed through a brief analysis of Revelation in terms of its content, authority and eternal perspicuity, we will begin to understand why the Westminster divines chose this route. Let us turn now to our exposition of the basic doctrine of revelation.

I. The Nature of God’s General (Universal, Natural) Revelation a) The question of revelation has always turned on two axis, that of General Revelation and that of Special Revelation.

- Of the two, the most contentious issue within Christianity is the precise nature of God’s universal, natural, revelation of himself. But the other aspect of special revelation has been intensely debated as well. With regard to the former the question is, what, if anything, can we know about God from the created order in its physical, animal and human expressions? The answers range from nothing to every thing, and various positions in between these extremes.

- The debate about revelation in the Middle Ages, after Thomas Aquinas, was mild compared to the debate since Calvin. It is generally agreed that a natural theology, (theology based on general revelation without the Bible), of some sort has always been a part of the church’s confession. Paul in Romans 1 and 2 initially laid it out, and we will say more about that later. General revelation as a doctrine later received some refinement in the works of Tertullian, Origen and Chrysostom, and it was formalized in the theology of St. Augustine and St. Anselm. Thomas Aquinas, under the influence of Aristotle, Augustine and St. Anselm, made general revelation (and the resulting natural theology) a very important component in his Summa Theologia. It enjoyed wide support with varying degrees of minor discussion throughout the Middle Ages. In the 16th century, however, it would receive a treatment by Calvin that still sets the terms of the debate today in theology, despite Immanuel Kant’s severe criticism of it in the 18th century. Thus, we need to turn briefly to Calvin for some orientation on General Revelation, especially since the Westminster divines, whose definition I have taken, were greatly influenced by him and the Tradition that flows from him.

- Calvin’s doctrine of General Revelation has an objective and subjective side. Subjectively Calvin says we have a knowledge of God within our rational capacity known as the sensus divinitas, or semen religionis, and/or the sensus deiti, which causes us to be religious beings and to agree that some God does exist. We know this either through a general religious consciousness, or a sense of “servile fear of God”, or even a “troubled conscience”. This sensus divinitas, 89

says Calvin, exempts us from any excuse making at the final judgment when we stand before God. It is a knowledge of God that we have via the negative, subjective, side of humanity and has no saving power. The problem is that this knowledge, which would otherwise be positive, is distorted and made ineffectual by our own insistence on either ignoring it or denying it. Calvin writes,

 “As experience shows, God has sown a seed of religion in all men. But, scarcely one man in a hundred is met with who cultivated it, and none in whom it ripens – much less shows fruit in season” (Ps. 1:3) (Institutes, I. Bk I. 48.)

- Rather than foster this “subjective seed of divine knowledge” we either turn away from God and “flatly deny his existence”, or we “fashion a God according to our own whim.” Calvin concludes, “thus is overthrown that vain defense with which many are want to gloss over with superstition. For they think that zeal for any religion, however preposterous, is sufficient.” While this seed of religion is there in humanity and is uncontestable, yet “by itself it produces only the worst fruits” and not saving knowledge of God. (I,1.51). But there is, according to Calvin, a second source of General Revelation. He writes that,

 “The knowledge of God shines forth in the fashioning of the universe and the continuing government of it.” (Institutes, I.1.51)

- If the revelation of God, subjectively, is ineffectual and therefore leads humanity to obscure it, the revelation of God in creation, “strips us of every excuse” because we cannot manipulate what is objective and beyond us so that it is obscured in and of itself. God reveals himself and discloses himself in the “whole workmanship of the universe.” Indeed humanity, as created in the image of God, is the “loftiest” of this source of divine self-revelation. This is God’s objective self-revelation. Calvin puts this aspect of general revelation in a much more positive light than the subjective aspect despite his over-all negative attitude. “While it is true that a negative sign stands over the whole revelation in creation in Calvin’s theology, we must not allow this sign to erase from our minds the magnitude of the sum thus negated” as Calvin understood it. (Edward Dowrey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, p. 73). Despite our inability and disobedience in regard to receiving objective general revelation in creation, it is there for us to see. For Calvin, the “actual guilt of man is the result of actual rejection of an actual revelation that remains clear.” (Edward Dowrey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, p. 73).

- And yet there is “a great gulf fixed” for Calvin between the original purpose of revelation in creation and it’s function. While man was created with the capacity for revelation in both its subjective and objective mode, he is functioning, in fact, “under the conditions of sin”. “It no longer achieves its original purpose, but it operates only to involve the whole human race in the same condemnation.” (Institutes, I.IV.1,2) “Men who are only taught by nature, have no certain, sound 90

or distinct knowledge, but are confined to confused principles, so that they worship an unknown God.” (I.V.12) This leads Calvin to an important conclusion with regard to the extent and usefulness of General Revelation. This is the conclusion that, in my estimation of the course of Christian theological history, we must keep in mind if we hope to have a balanced view of revelation. He writes:

 “Vain therefore, is the light afforded us in the formation of the world to illustrate the glory of its author, which though its rays be diffused all around us, is insufficient to conduct us into the right way. Some sparks are kindled, indeed, but they are smothered before they have emitted any great degree of light.” (Institutes, I.1, 51) - Only Scripture, as we shall see later, can lead us into the right path for a knowledge of God. This Reformed doctrine of general revelation is shared by many today despite the growing emphasis on the power and ability of general revelation, without the Bible, to lead to a saving knowledge of God (vis-à-vis Pluralism and Open Theism). b) In his delineation of the objective aspect of Revelation, Calvin also offered 3 sub categories; Nature, History and Humanity.

- Millard Erickson calls these ‘modes of revelation’. He agrees with Calvin that this is the general sense of Scripture in Ps. 19:1 – “the heavens declare the glory of God…” and Paul’s statements in Rom. 1:18-20. These passages, along with the “nature Psalms”, suggest that God has left evidence of Himself in the world. The same can be said in history. God’s self revelation can, according to Calvin and Erickson, be seen in the trends and events that occurred in the past, e.g. the preservation of Israel. The problem, however, is that history is a discipline that carries with it a hermeneutical presupposition allowing the interpreter of history to put their spin on the events. This makes it a highly suspect category of General Revelation. Any religion can invoke the providence of their particular God in history.

- In the idea of humanity as a microcosm there is some merit for seeking points of general revelation as the popular book, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made makes clear. The Psalmist himself mused about his wonderful constitution, (Ps. 139). The idea of the human religious tendency, or “sensus divinitas”, is, however, much more suspect than we are given to believe today. Erickson agrees with Calvin that such an impulse is “marred and distorted” and yet Erickson remains somewhat optimistic of its continuing significance. I, for my part, suspect it more than anything because, as Calvin points out, it is precisely where we are apt to either deny God or fashion a god after our own likeness. This is also why Barth was so suspicious of it.

91 c) This brings us quite naturally to the question of “natural theology”, or the construction of a theology on the basis of General Revelation “apart from the Bible”.

- As suggested above, this tradition stems from Augustine through Anselm to Aquinas who is seen as the one who perfects “natural theology.” The crucial question about general revelation here is, can it be used to support an express theology inferred from humanity and created order alone? To do so involves, as Erickson suggests, certain crucial assumptions.

1. The first is that, in God’s self-revelation in creation, “Patterns of meaning are objectively present even if no one perceives, understands and accepts this General Revelation.” Included in this is the idea that the universe and the world as we know it has been this way since creation. Any kind of evolution or mutation would ultimately alter and relativize any knowledge gained from creation.

2. The second assumption is that there is an assumed integrity on the part of the person who is able to ascertain this natural theology. That is, in their rational capacities, they stand above the natural effects of sin and the fall in their ability to recognize and interpret “the handiwork of God”, e.g. The angelic doctor, Aquinas.

3. Thirdly, they assume that there is a good degree of congruity between the human rational faculty and the external world. The order of the rational faculty reflects the order of creation. Therefore, the human mind can draw inferences from its interpretation of our experience of creation. All of it will come out even in the end in that our experience of the world will be shown to be commensurate with revelation through the use of reason. Where contradictions exist, time will bring congruity between mind, creation and special revelation.

- As Erickson suggests, “the core of natural theology is the idea that it is possible, without a prior commitment of faith in the beliefs of Christianity, and without relying on any special authority, institution or document, to come to a genuine knowledge of God on the basis of reason alone, i.e. the capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate the truth apart from the Bible.” (Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine )

- In Thomas Aquinas’ teaching, all truth is either of the sort that comes from either the lower realm of nature, or the higher realm of revelation (grace). The knowledge of the higher realm must be accepted on the basis of Scripture while the knowledge of nature can be deduced by reason. He claimed much for pure reason – including the ability to prove the existence of God, the immortality of the soul and the supernatural origin of the church. The doctrines of the higher realm, Trinity, incarnation, etc. require the knowledge and authority of Scripture. His arguments for the existence of God aptly illustrate the former. They are as follows.

92

 The Cosmological Argument

- Everything we know by experience has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because no effect could have arisen of itself. There must be, therefore, some uncaused cause, or “unmoved mover”. This “unmoved mover” is God. We do not need special revelation to show us this, but it names the unmoved mover for us. He adds to this 3 other arguments for the existence of God.

 The teleological Argument (from telos meaning order or end)

- This is commonly known as the argument from design. Here the argument focuses upon the apparent purposefulness of creation, i.e. the illustration of a gardener or watchmaker. The universe exhibits mechanisms that have a telos (or end) suggesting a designer. The universe cannot have come together haphazardly in such cases, therefore the designer is God.

 The anthropological (moral) argument sees some aspect of human nature as a revelation of God.

- Of all the arguments only this one had any appeal for Kant. He develops it beyond the scope of Aquinas as a basis for moral ontology. All of us possess a moral impulse, i.e. a “categorical imperative” which Kant called wille or ought-ness. Since our moral actions do not often reward us the question begs itself - “Why be good?” There must be some sort of reward for our moral actions. This led Kant to postulate God and the immortality of the soul as an end for moral ought-ness. This moral order serves as a proof for the existence of God, though we cannot be sure that he exists, nor can we know what he is like.

- The cosmological, teleological and anthropological (moral) arguments all proceed from experience, i.e. a posteriori. Only one of Aquinas’ arguments – the ontological argument, proceeds from an a priori or rational standpoint. Here Thomas is directly influenced by Anselm.

 The ontological argument – This means literally the argument from ones own inner being. It is a purely rational argument and prefigures Descartes cogito ergo sum. Anselm was the first to formulate it in his Proslogion, though he was influenced by Augustine’s book on the Trinity. The argument postulates God as that being which is the greatest of all conceivable beings. Such a being cannot, not exist (for the non existent being of our conceptions would be greater if it had the attribute of existence) – Thus, God exists.

- Kant’s arguments against the arguments for the existence of God in his critique of Pure Reason and Practical Reason are aimed primarily at this argument. One cannot argue, says Kant, form the attribute of being because such an attribute does 93

not exist. There can be no comparison between a being that exists and a being that does not exist because beings that exist cannot have qualities of beings that do not exist. The only difference one can predicate between them is existence. One cannot imagine a being exists simply because another being exists. “Existence is not a necessary predicate of the greatest of all conceivable beings.” Such a being may exist – or it may not – we cannot know. This caused Kant to question the whole enterprise of natural theology and general revelation. d) The Critique of Natural theology - Kant’s critique of Natural theology in his Prolegomena Toward any Future Metaphysics and Critique of Pure Reason was very effective in shutting down all attempts at Natural theology in Protestant circles for a long time, though Schleiermacher’s argument can be seen as a sort of argument from experience.

- Indeed, until recently, natural theology was suspect in modern circles. Recently the debate has been renewed with an attempt to reclaim Aquinas for Protestant Theology among radical orthodox theologians. Despite the claim of natural theology to rational footings, few philosophers and theologians since Kant have taken it seriously.

- The problem inherent in natural theology is that it works to our disadvantage if our proofs are inadequate, as Kant’s critique shows. A further problem with some natural theology (and apologetics) is that they contain assumptions that are easily assailable. This is the case with Thomas’ argument from causation since one effect may have several causes and vice versa.

- The whole idea of the dynamic reality of the universe is popular among physicists today. It’s the old Hereclytean flux. The universe is constantly changing. “You cannot step into the same river twice.” The Teleological Argument falls under the same critique. The argument from design was virtually destroyed by David Hume in his Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion. e) The Biblical Witness to General Revelation:

- Psalm 19:1-4 Clearly the Psalmist views creation as giving some evidence of God’s glory. Rom. 1:18-32; 2:14-16 indicates that God’s wrath is just, because we have refused the witness of creation.

- In Acts 14:15-17, Paul appeals to God’s witness to himself in creation. In Acts 17:22-31 –the Mars Hill passage– Paul invokes the “religious impulse” argument. But Paul does not indicate the nature of this natural knowledge of God, or what purpose it may serve. He only appeals to it here as a point of contact with the gospel. f) Implications of General Revelation 94

- Coming back to Calvin, the really big question that has dogged Calvin’s interpretation of revelation is as follows; Can those without special revelation avoid condemnation and judgment according to Rom. 2:14? Another related question is; What is the distinction between internal and external law? Ought we not to be able to conclude on the basis of law and nature that God exists. “In other words, the knowledge of God which all human have, if they do not suppress it, should bring them to the conclusion that they are guilty and need relationship to God.”

- What if, with this natural knowledge, we throw ourselves on the mercy of God – as in the Old Testament? Was not Abraham justified on the basis of his faith in a promise before Christ? But according to the NT the basis of salvation is always faith in the work of Christ, of which we must have some knowledge– be it promise or present reality.

- Thus we must conclude that it is theoretically possible, as with the apostle Paul, (Rom. 2:1-18) to come to a saving knowledge of God without Christ; But in Romans 3:23 he seems to close this option off as a practical consequence of the natural knowledge of God. All of us fall short of the righteousness required for this relationship.

- “Thus it is apparent that in failing to respond to the light of general revelation, which they have, people are fully responsible, for they have truly known God, but have willingly suppressed that truth. Thus, general revelation serves, as does the law, merely to make us guilty, not more righteous.” (Erickson, Intro…) So what can we say about general revelation that is more positive?

Other, more Positive Implications of General Revelation

1. General Revelation gives us common ground with unbelievers and can serve as a point of departure for discussion. All have a modicum of the knowledge of a divine being in some sense. 2. There is a theoretical possibility of some knowledge of divine truth outside of special revelation. In this sense general revelation can help confirm scripture but not vice versa. It is a supplement to and not a substitute for Scripture. It can really only serve a negative purpose in this regard in describing what God is not. Sin affects all human knowledge. 3. God is just (and therefore not self contradictory) in condemning those who have never heard the gospel in the full and formal sense. No one is completely without opportunity. Thus all are responsible. 4. World religions are a reflection of the reality of general revelation, though the knowledge of God contained in them cannot lead to saving knowledge. They are distortions of Biblical truth. The inevitable idolatries of a wayward humanity, prone to creating God in its own image. 5. Harmony does exist between general revelation and Special Revelation, but great care needs to be applied lest special revelation comes under the authority of 95

general revelation as with scholasticism, before and after the Reformation, and rationalism during and after the Enlightenment. 6. Genuine knowledge and genuine moral behavior are the products of a gracious God, not human products. “Truth arrived at apart from Special Revelation is still God’s truth.” (A. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth)

II. Revelation Proper: Special or Particular Revelation a) By Special Revelation we mean God’s manifestation of Himself to particular persons at definite times and places, enabling those persons to enter into a redemption relationship with him.

- The Hebrew word, galāh and the Greek word, αποκαλυπτω, both express the idea of uncovering, disclosing and revealing, Cf also the lesser used Greek word epiphania form the verb φανεροω which means to make manifest.

- Why is special revelation necessary? Humanity, through sin, lost its favored status before God, and thus the capacity for full relationship and knowledge of God. To regain fellowship, a knowledge of God is necessary that goes beyond the creaturely realm and the natural finiteness of fallen human understanding. Being spiritually blinded by sin, God’s special revelation in Word, act and being becomes necessary. The goal of special revelation was and is the reestablishment of the God/human relationship to its ideal form through God’s saving action. These were recorded in Scripture.

- Knowledge about serves the purpose of knowledge of and is limited to this. Thus, the knowledge of God in his special revelation is not exhaustive. “The merely curious are not accommodated by special revelation”. While special revelation may be termed “remedial revelation”, this is not an indication that humanity’s knowledge of God before the fall was a complete general revelation. We are simply not told about this. Gen. 1:28; 3:8. There was a type of special revelation from God before the fall – instructions such as “do not eat…” come under this class of knowledge.

- Sin is the instance of the need for Special Revelation. This was the case because sin had cut us off from the presence of God. God must now reveal His will regarding the human fallen condition as well. Sin, guilt and depravity had to be met with redemption, atonement and reconciliation. Therefore General revelation cannot relay the substance of this redemptive plan. “General revelation gives us the concept of God – special revelation give the precepts of God.” Both general and special revelation have “a common subject matter yielding a complementary and harmonious understanding.” b) The Nature of Special Revelation 96

- It is first of all personal in nature – i.e. Person to person: God to men (Ex. 3:14). It is covenantal from beginning to end – Genesis to Revelation. Cf. Psalms, Prophecies, Gospels, Epistles, all have personal traits and covenantal language.

- The Scriptures are not a formal theological presentation. The scripture contains, not a set of universal truths, but concrete statements about various human situations. It is not necessarily a book of doctrines and creeds, though creedal formulas do exist. The subject matter pertains primarily to God’s plan of redemption. It is not per se a book of cosmology, science, history etc. though there is some information of this sort.

 “The Bible does not digress into matters of merely historical concern. It does not fill in gaps in the knowledge of the past. It does not concentrate on biographical details. What God reveals is primarily Himself as a person, and especially those dimensions of Himself that are particularly significant for faith.” (Erickson, Christian Theology)

- It is also “anthropic” in nature – God is transcendent despite his personal revelation. He lies beyond sense experience as an all knowing, all-powerful, ever-present being. He is not subject to the confines of space and time, except in his decision to be so in the incarnation. Space and time are in God. Revelation is – in the terms of Exodus 3:14f –the condescension of God the Savior. As such, God’s revelation of Himself takes on a form that makes our comprehension of Him possible. This is not strict anthropomorphism as such, but a revelation of God wherein God accommodates Himself to human language, thought and action. – God commandeers language. Thus, the language in which God’s self revelation was originally deposited was an ancient language and it presents its own problems. The scriptures also tell of God’s self revelation in dreams, visions and prophecies. The Old Testament is replete with examples. It was not a matter of a particular type of experience employed, but a matter of how the experience was utilized to reveal God. The incarnation is anthropic in the sense that God accommodates Himself to humanity in Christ. He was human in every way. There were exceptions to this type of Revelation, that were not recorded. – Jn. 12:28; Jn 22.

- Special revelation is also analogical in nature. This issue however, is hotly contested in theology – K. Barth and E. Przyrwara debated weather analogy, the comparison of God to humanity via negative and positive metaphors etc, drawn from human experience can say anything certain about God. Here, language becomes an important aspect of God’s self-revelation. The theory is that God uses aspects of the universe that show likeness to Himself. God’s actions, for instance, can be known by human actions analogically. God’s love is mirrored in our love, etc. Today Trinitarian analogies abound, but none of them can do justice to God’s self-revelation. Analogy proceeds on the basis of the qualitative sameness, i.e. 97

human power vs. God’s power. God is in much greater degree than what we are – or the opposite of what we are not / finite/infinite.

 “We cannot grasp how much more of each of these qualities God possesses, or what it means to say that God has our knowledge amplified to an infinite extent. Having observed only finite forms, we find it impossible to grasp infinite concepts. In this sense God always remains incomprehensible.” (Erickson, Christian Theology)

- Ultimately God cannot fit into our finite capacity for knowledge. “Although what we know of Him is the same as His knowledge of Himself, the degree of our knowledge is much less.” God is the one who makes the analogy, not us. It is an analogy of relation – analogia relationis centered in the relationship between God and humanity displayed in the incarnate Christ. We ourselves cannot be the source of the analogy because we do not see ourselves from God’s side or God’s self from His side.

* Only God, who knows all things, can give us an analogy that adequately explains Himself to us. d) The form(s), modes of special revelation – Means, modes, forms

1. Historical Events – e.g. the call of Abraham, the Exodus, etc.

- The Old and New Testaments witness to God’s providential care and self- revelation in a number of events of history recorded therein. The Exodus would be one such example. The principle event is, of course, the Incarnation, but it is a category all its own. God has acted in history, and in so doing he reveals himself to be a saving God. His action speaks of his character.

2. Divine Speech – God’s speaking and his acting go together.

- God has spoken in all forms of literary and vocal address. Vocal address can be seen especially in the prophets. (Jer. 18:1; Ezk. 12:1-8, 17, 21, 26; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1, Amos 3:1.) There is a consciousness of divine address throughout the Scriptures. Heb. 1:1-2. God’s actions require God’s words to express their meaning. Speech for God means a commandeering of language for His purposes. It is always in the form of human language –e.g. Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. God’s speech is therefore mediated speech. It can be audible, silent and inward, as well as written. It is concursive (jointly written with human writers) in terms of the written inspired text. In the text, revelation and divine inspiration have merged. God directed the thoughts of the biblical writers through the Spirit. These revelations are not recollections, but divine impartations. 98

- Quite frequently, the spoken and written word is the interpretation of an event. Not only the event itself, but the interpretation of the event constitutes revelation. Without God’s express purpose being declared in the event itself, it becomes meaningless. Even the incarnation requires divine interpretation or we would miss it. “We must conclude that the interpretation of certain events is a modality of revelation as genuine as that of God’s acts in history.” (Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology)

3. The Incarnation – This is the definitive form of God’s self-revelation.

- Jesus life, speech, action, death and resurrection all constitute the substance of his revelatory event. Christ in his humanity must represent a mediation of divine revelation but this revelation is still a full revelation of God in terms of knowledge for salvation. Heb. 1:1-2 tells us that in these last days “God has spoken through his Son.” It then goes on to delineate exactly how God has spoken in His Son through an analysis of the OT sacrificial system. The incarnation is the pinnacle of God’s self-revelation as event. It fulfills, summarizes and explicates all other forms of revelation. Jesus life, message, ministry and atonement surpasses all other revelation.

- In Matt. 5:11 Jesus claims to be the πληροω (pleroo- fulfillment) of the Old Testament. As such Jesus speech is God’s speech. Everything about Jesus is a revelation about God because He is God. John 1:1-18 is the most definitive statement of this self-revelation of God. As God He (Jesus Christ) “was,” (ήν-- en) God. This was also the confession of the centurion at the cross, Matt. 27:54; Lk. 5:8. In Jesus Christ, revelation as act and Word come together. He both spoke the Father’s Word and demonstrated His attributes. He was the most complete revelation of God, I John 1:1; Jn. 14:9.

EXCURSUS: Special Revelation, Propositional or Personal

- The scriptures are not just the communications of information about God but are the presentation of God’s self revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God tells us about Himself in Word, in action and in person. Thus, revelation is not strictly prepositional, but it contains propositions that are derived from God’s personal self-revelation. Faith requires mental ascent, but also personal commitment. Scripture does indeed contain doctrines to be believed, but such doctrines speak of personal realities. Faith must be propositional, but also necessarily personal belief precedes truth and yet cannot dispense with truth. It must be something you can take to the bank.

- Theology is also a problem for itself in this regard. All theologians want to distinguish their theology as true over against another. How does one decide on 99

the truth or falsity of a given doctrine without resorting to a strict propositionalism? Some how we must accept the fact that revelation is not either personal or prepositional, it is both – and. What God primarily does is reveal himself, but He does so at least in part by telling us something about Himself.

- Revelation, as propositional truth can and has been preserved. It can and has been inscripturated. “And this written record, to the extent that it is an accurate reproduction of the original manuscripts, is also by derivation, revelation and entitled to be called that”. (Erickson, Christian Theology). If revelation is defined as “only the actual occurrence, the process of the revealing, then the Bible is not revelation … If however, it is also the product, the result of the revealed, then the Bible may also be termed “revelation”. Such revelation would have to be inspired, and preserved in this inspired state.

- Is revelation progressive? Later revelation builds on early revelation from Old Testament to New Testament, i.e. are they progressive only in the sense that they are complimentary, supplementary? We must affirm that they are complementary and supplementary. Redemption is process and revelation is only as it coincides with redemption. God’s self revelation in the Scriptures far exceeds General Revelation and makes His will for us clear. It is both personal and prepositional.

III. Scripture as Theology’s Norming Norm a) The Inspiration of the Scriptures: Fact or Fiction. I Tim 3:16

- By inspiration of Scripture we mean the divine election, inbreathing, (theopneustos) and guidance of the biblical writers for the express purpose of ensuring the trustworthiness and efficacy of their writings through the ages (Is. 30:8; Heb. 2:2). “Furthermore, God’s Spirit was operative upon both the writers and their writings, and He continues to be present in their testimony throughout the history of the church, preserving it from corruption. By the gift of inspiration the Biblical writings are made the repository of divine truth as well as the only channel of divine revelation.” (D. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology,).

- Such inspiration is verbal inspiration in the sense that the Scriptures came about as the consensus of divine and human activity. The divine activity does not totally supercede humanity but works congruently with the human so that the scriptures are the product of both God and man, but under the divine authorship of God. (Is. 59:21; Ex. 31:18; II Sam. 23:2; Is. 49:2; I Cor. 2:13). Such inspiration is also plenary meaning that the Scriptures are inspired in their entirety. The words of both the prophets and apostles are inspired. II Pet. 3:2.

- Erickson’s definition of inspiration runs as follows: “By inspiration we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which 100

rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God” This is too weak! The Word of God had to be written to better preserve revelation. Inspiration has to do with the means of relaying divine Revelation to the writers. In this sense Revelation and inspiration belong together. The totality of Revelation was not given by inspiration. Jesus did and said many things that went unrecorded according to Jn. 21:25.

- Scripture everywhere assumes, and often explicitly claims divine inspiration for itself. This may be circular reasoning, but so are other systems however. There are other reasons to believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture. The Scriptural witness to itself is valid if taken with other evidence. II Pet. 1:20-21, “Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from (apo theou-from God). The impetus for writing was the moving of the Holy Spirit. II Tim. 3:16 (θεοπνευστος) – Scripture, God breathed. θεος + πνευµα (theos, God + pneuma, breath). As such they had value for doctrine, reproof, equipping, etc.

- In Acts 1:16, Peter claims the same authority for the Psalms. Ps. 69:25; 107:8. “It is written in scripture” is equivalent to “God has spoken it”. The prophetic witness in this regard is overwhelming. Jer. 30:4; Amos 3:1; II Sam. 23:2. Jesus Himself claimed inspired authority for the Scriptures. Jn. 10:35; Matt. 5:18, 24:2; Lk. 22:27. Clearly Jesus regarded the Old Testament as Scripture. b) Theories of Inspiration - The inspiration of Scripture is a fact from the Biblical point of view. But what exactly does inspiration mean? A number of theories have been advanced.

1. For some it means inspiration was a matter of spiritually guided intuition, i.e. it is a special gift, like an artistic talent, and yet a naturally permanent possession. This is very problematic in that it reduces Scripture to a set of “inspiring” Greek religious writings. 2. The illumination theory maintains that there was an influence of the Holy Spirit but only in terms of heightening their powers of spiritual sensitivity. 3. The dynamic theory emphasizes the combination of divine and human elements in the process of inspiration with the Divine controlling the process. 4. Verbal theory maintains that the actual words were directed by the Holy Spirit but not dictated. 5. Dictation theory – God dictated word for word. The human element is all but eliminated.

The Extent of Inspiration

101

- Jesus and the New Testament writers regarded every word, syllable and punctuation mark of the Old Testament as inspired. II Pet. 1:19-21; Jn. 20-34-35 – “all the Prophets”= Scripture. Lk. 24:24-27, 44-45; Matt. 5:17-21. – “every jot and tittle.”

The Intensiveness of Inspiration

- Inspiration is understood to be “plenary verbal,” i.e. all pervasive. The Spirit can direct human intuition to choose the word that will best express the revelation. “It is possible, without dictation – to know just what another person wants to say, based on closeness of relationship and a long period of acquaintance.” (Bernard Ramm, Inspiration of the Bible P. 67). Because the Bible has been inspired, we can be confident of having divine instruction.

III. The Trustworthiness of Scripture

- The inerrancy of Scripture has been hotly debated in Evangelical circles. The doctrine states that the Bible (the 66 books of the protestant canon) is fully inerrant – without error – in all that it teaches, in the autographs. Such a view is central to the Evangelical understanding of authority and truth. It is a corollary to the Doctrine of Inspiration and the last step in Doctrine of Scripture. a) Various Conceptions of Inerrancy

- There is a great deal of difference in various meanings of this term.

1. Absolute Inerrancy holds that the Bible, in all of its phases, historical, scientific and theological, is without error in the autographs. The impression is that the Biblical writers wanted to give us scientific facts as well. Thus apparent discrepancies can and must be explained. (e.g. II Chr. 4:2)

2. Full Inerrancy also holds that the Bible is completely true in that its aim is to give us a theological account and spiritual message, not a scientific or historical one. Full Inerrantists say that scientific facts are recorded as observed by the human eye and are only exact as they are visually observed.

3. Limited Inerrancy regards the Bible as inerrant and infallible in its salvific content. Scientific and historical facts reflect a world-view rather than actual states of affairs. The Biblical writers were limited to what the culture of that time knew to be true scientifically and historically. Revelation and inspiration did not apply to mundane facts. Consequently the Bible may seem to contain errors, but these are reflections of the Biblical authors world-view. But this is of no great significance since the Scriptures intend to teach a theological and Spiritual message. 102

b) The Importance of Inerrancy.

- Why should the church be concerned about this seemingly negative concept? Some see the issues as time wasted and church splitting and inflammatory. While some of these points are well taken, there is, as Erickson notes, a practical issue that is important in relation to inerrancy. That of Belief – or Epistemology. Three key areas are included.

i) The Theological Importance of Inerrancy

- Jesus, Paul and the New Testament in general, all viewed the Scriptures as authoritative and inspired. If so, this would imply that the Scriptures must coincide with God’s omniscience and immutability. His omniscience and immutability would so affect the author of the text so that he would write errorlessly. Thus, God’s being entails the inerrancy of His revelation. If Scripture were shown to be in error, would this not deny its inspiration by an omnisciencent and immutable God?

ii) The Historical Importance

- Inerrancy is the historical legacy of the church from Paul to Luther. Historically, when inerrancy is abandoned, there is theological error. History is the laboratory that has proven the need for a doctrine of inerrancy.

iii) The Epistemological Question - How do we come to know what we know to be true?

- If we base our theological propositions on the Scripture as a trustworthy and reliable source for truth, then it stands to reason that the Bible should be written without error. Thus, it is of utmost importance that we claim the Scriptures to be inerrant. Otherwise, some other basis for doctrine – a general theory of religion/philosophy must be found. This means that certain key doctrines will be lost. Trinity, virgin birth, etc.

c) Defining Inerrancy for this class.

- “The Bible, when correctly interpreted in the light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all it affirms.” – i.e. full inerrancy. What does this mean?

103

i. Inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed or asserted, rather than to what is merely reported. Are Job’s comforters always right? Everything in the Bible is truth and all truth is in the Bible, but not everything in the Bible can be regarded as truth.

ii. We must judge the truthfulness of Scripture in terms of what the statements meant in the cultural settings in which they were expressed. – i.e. the use of symbolic numbers etc. The concept of “Son”.

iii. The Bible’s assertions are fully true when judged in accordance with the purpose for which they were written, i.e. 10,000 men as opposed to the exact number. What would be considered accurate 9,000-9,560? It depends on the purpose of the reporting. If the idea is to confer proportion in a general sense then estimations are O.K.

iv. Reports of historical events and scientific matters are in phenomenal rather than technical language – i.e. how things appear to the eye.

v. Difficulties in the text should not be prejudged as error. – Fools often rush into conclusions about them. (e.g. Judas in Matt. 27:5; Acts 1:18.

e) The finality of the Scriptures: Objective and Subjective aspects of Authority.

- With the advent of postmodernism we have the wholesale rejection of external authority in favor of personal belief systems. The postmodern question is: Is there an authoritative person, text or institution for faith? “Is there a text in this class”? Are we subject to the authority of a creature God? Is the Bible the deposit of His authority in written form?

Excurses

What about the role of the Spirit?

- Revelation is God’s word in the inspired Scripture. For the reception of revelation we need the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Because:

1) Of the ontological difference between God and us– God is transcendent – We are limited in our understanding of God. 2) We require certainty on faith issues – thus, the Spirit must illuminate and bring assurance of faith. 104

3) We require the illumination of the Spirit because of our sin. Matt. 13:13- 15. cf. Rom. 1:21, 11:8; I Cor. 2:14. The work of the Spirit regenerates us so that understanding is possible. John 14-16 describes the continuing work of the Holy Spirit of truth. 4) Teaching all things. We need the Spirit as a teacher to lead us into all truth. 5) Witnessing to Christ must be done in the power of the Spirit who impresses the Word of God upon the heart of the recipient. 6) Convicting the world of sin cannot happen without the application of God’s word in the power of the Spirit.

- The Holy Spirit “Guides us into truth, calling to remembrance the words of Jesus, not speaking on his own, but speaking what he hears, bringing about conviction, witnessing to Christ. This work seems not so much a new ministry, or the addition of new truth not previously make known, but rather an action of the Holy Spirit in relationship to truth already revealed,” i.e. no new revelation. (Erickson, Introducing…)

How do we understand the Objective and subjective aspects of truth?

- Authority thus resides in the Scriptures as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, not just the literary reality called the Bible. American fundamentalism omitted the role of the Holy Spirit calling for an objective quality in the Bible’s revelation and ability to bring us to knowledge “ a chapter a day keeps the devil away.”

- On the other hand, others over emphasize the subjective role of the Spirit subordinating the text to “what the Spirit told me it means!” It is actually a combination of both objective and subjective aspects. The written word correctly interpreted is the objective reality of God’s word while the Spirit’s illumination is the subjective reality of God’s word. Both are in concert.

105

THS 571 Session XVIII Believers Church Tradition Hermeneutical Issues in the Believers Church Tradition

Introductory Comments

- This problem is central to the debate about religious authority for the truth. The postmodern obsession with language and meaning has made it a question of paramount importance in Christian theology.

- “Scripture itself calls for interpretation of the mysteries it contains. A mere recital of the words of the Bible will not suffice. We are covenant partners with the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of the text” (Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 172)

I. The Concept of Hermeneutics.

(a) Hermeneutics is exegesis and interpretation.

- In the exegesis of a text (ex (out) + ego (to lead)= to lead out) we want to discover the “original meaning” of a given text in terms of “authorial” intent. What was the original meaning of the text. To whom was it directed, and how did they understand it.

- In the exposition of a text we try, on the basis of our exposition to isolate the timeless principles and apply them to our contemporary setting in a way that does not do violence to the text. In exegesis the object is to come to an understanding of the cultural, syntactical, grammatical and lexical understanding of the text. But hermeneutics demands of this exegesis a synthesis of how the meaning of the text “bares on the moral and spiritual issues that presently confront us. As such hermeneutics is the translation of the meaning of a text from its literary context to the present situation.

- This approach to biblical interpretation owes much to the reformation insistence on the sensus literalis of the text. “The reformers [rightly] protested the allegorizing of Scripture that was prominent in Medieval theology on the grounds that that this method opened the door to arbitrary exegesis.” In doing so they bequeathed to the BCT a strong emphasis on the literal and natural meaning of the text. It was often equated with what they called the sensus plenior, or plain sense of Scripture. But the plain sense of Scripture must take into account the worldview of the author, his cultural setting, and his “scale of values”, and not just the lexical-syntactical relationships. Theological exegesis can then exposit the meaning of the text in a relevant way. This requires an absolute and complete dependence on the action of the Holy Spirit. (Cf Bloesch p. 177) Barth on the sache of Scripture.

106

(b) Can texts have meaning: The postmodern critique.

- Stanly Fish’ Book/question, “Is There a Text in This Class?” has become the famous way of asking, in the postmodern context, whether a text can convey meaning as such. His criticism is linked to the idea that a sign on a page cannot in and of itself convey any single meaning because everybody interprets the sign differently. Because of the disparity between authorial intent and reader reception the idea that a text with definitive meaning actually exists is an illusion. This is not the way to understand the function of a text, especially the Bible.

- Hans-Georg Gadamer was right to point out however that meaning in a text is arrived at not just on the bare face of the text as written, but “as the Spirit breathes on, in and through the text”, it is given final and authoritative meaning. As bloesch notes: “The object is not the text in and of itself but the text as an instrument of the Spirit, in whose hands it becomes the mirror of divine wisdom.” (Holy Scripture p. 178)

(c) How then is truth related to meaning in the BCT.

- “The truth of faith lodges not in the human interpreter nor in the community of faith but in the Word of God, whose presence encompasses the text of Holy Scripture” We come to an understanding of this Word when, by the power of the Spirit, we hear it and submit to its authority as a declarative Word of God because of the action of the Spirit on our hearts. This involves a fourfold process, reflective of the Reformed approach to Scripture.

- (1) The approach to Scripture must be one of reverence. Unlike Bloesch, I believe such a person will approach the text through the action of the Holy Spirit who convicts the seeker of the veracity of the text, thereby leading them to “repentance” and then “into all truth.”

- (2) The writings then give way to “reverent” scientific and rational “scrutiny.” Criticism means not finding fault with the text but a close examination and evaluation of its content, again led by the Spirit, but with full rational engagement. Her we determine what is essential and what is peripheral.

- (3) But we must also allow the text to interrogate us, as to our presuppositions, spiritual standing, and faith commitment. This is not a negative task, but rather a positive, edifying task. As Bloesch notes, Calvin said it best when he wrote, “we must be emptied of our own understanding” in order to achieve “a saving acquaintance with God” in relation to the text of Scripture. “We must let ourselves be questioned so radically that we center everything in Him and nothing in ourselves.” (T F Torrance Herm. Of J. Calvin, p. 150)

- (4) Exegesis and exposition should begin and end in Prayer. Here we receive the Word deeply into ourselves, regardless of the radical challenge it poses for our 107

lives. David understood this above all else in his approach to the Word of God, (Ps. 119:18). Her Karl Barth can be very instructive for the Believers Church Tradition. Barth writes that in regard to exegesis and exposition, as a focal point of the church’s action, “the decisive activity is prayer, the giving of thanks for the reality of this government and the petition that it may never cease to be a reality. Because it is the decisive activity, prayer must take precedence even of exegesis, and in no circumstances must it be suspended.” (CD I/2 p. 695)

- This method, espoused by Bloesch as “post-critical, pneumatic exegesis” is not to be understood as a static method but as a description of the process whereby we come to the knowledge of the Word of God.

II. Is There a Place for “Spiritual Exegesis” In the BCT.

(a) Is Scripture limited to a single interpretation everywhere?

- There is an understanding in the evangelical tradition that all of Scripture has one single meaning in whole and in its parts, and that nowhere does it permit multiple interpretations. Therefore we cannot engage in typology, allegorical interpretation, or the “spiritualizing” of a given text. But the questions raised by this strict adherence to the hermeneutics of single meaning are manifold.

- For instance, many have argued recently that the (Medieval) fourfold interpretation of Scripture is more faithful to the intent of the Scriptures, and allows for greater latitude of meaning. But other evangelical theologians in the BCT find in this approach, an exegetical elitism, wherein only the most “spiritually mature” are able to discern the ultimate meaning of a text.

- But the NT clearly employs typological and, in Paul’s case, spiritualizing exegesis of the OT. (I Cor. 10:1-4; Gal. 4:21-31). Jesus Himself employs a form of spiritual exegesis in Jn3:14, and elsewhere. Certainly the Church Fathers did so with regularity, though Chrysostom avoided this. (Origen, Augustine, Ambrose and others can be named as practicing a “pluralist hermeneutic.)

- With the advent of the Reformation, however, the fourfold hermeneutics came under increasing criticism because of its use in defending certain Catholic doctrines not supported by the plain sense of Scripture. Luther continued to use some aspects of Medieval exegesis, but Calvin insists on the one (simplex) meaning, arrived at through a grammatical-historical exegesis of the text. But both Reformers spoke of the necessity of constructing a theology of the Gospel on the basis of this hermeneutic. The key feature of such a hermeneutic is the role of the Spirit in illumination, especially for Calvin, who has had the greatest impact on the BCT. He is followed her by John Owen, The Westminster Catechism, Jonathan Edwards, and other great figures of the BCT.

108

(b) I would propose the “Cannonical Process Approach” as the way forward.

- My former instructor in OT lit., Bruce Waltke would rail against the single meaning approach of Walter Kaiser as entirely inadequate for a proper understanding of the wisdom and poetic literature, especially the Psalms. He proposed adopting the “cannonical process” approach of Breved Childs, who understood the need to interpret any single text in terms of the theological intent of the Canon as a whole. So while a single text may have variable meanings, it must be interpreted in terms of the unified theological vision of the whole Bible. As the Canon grew, so also did the meaning of the texts that formed it, until its closure in the Early Church. We may understand the multiple meaning and application of a text only in the light of the Revelation constituted by God himself as Scripture. Thus where it allows typological interpretation, and spiritual exegesis, we may follow, as long as we stay within the parameters of the canonical whole of God’s self-revelation.

III. We Can Learn Much From the Reformed Approach to Hermeneutics.

(a) The Reformers affirmed the inherent clarity of the Scriptures.

- The clarity of Scriptures pertains to the message more so than the actual text, thus the need for hermeneutics. According to Luther, the task of exegesis, at every point in the Bible is to find and exposit the Gospel for the life of faith. Thus clarity is a correlative aspect of faith. One need not be an expert in the languages or in theology, but only a careful and faithful reader of the text. “Scripture is clear when we submit to its authority.” (Prov. 2:1, 9-10)

(b) The Reformers regarded the literal, or plain sense of the text as normative.

- That is, the grammatical-historical meaning always takes precedence. The meaning and intensions of the author, far from being irretrievable, was the guiding question of exegetical inquiry. The text may lead us past this at points, but it does not disregard the plain sense. Rather, it builds upon it in the theological exposition of the plain sense. The plain sense provides the necessary control point in theological exposition.

- The Reformers were famous for their consistent employment of the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The principle of sola Scripture meant not only that theology must be based on Scripture, but that Scripture provides its own rational for its interpretation and authority.

(c) The Reformers also regarded hermeneutics as Christocentric.

109

- The salvific content of Scripture is the self-revelation of God in Christ Jesus. Its authority is caught up with this saving event of history. For Luther, Christ is the “star and kernel” of the Bible. Some texts are tough nuts to crack, but yield their meaning when thrown up against the Rock, Christ Jesus.

- From this understanding we have received the twofold distinction between the formal principle of the Gospel, the Bible as a book, and the material principle, the Gospel message contained therein. Thus the Old Testament must be interpreted by the new, and the obscure passages by the clear, with the Gospel of Christ as the guiding principle.

(d) The Reformers insisted on the complementarity of Word and Spirit in interpretation.

- The Spirit does not bring new revelations but interprets the meaning of the text and leads us to relevant application in the present circumstances. Calvin saw this as crucial to the task of interpretation.

- “The Word and the Spirit are two teachers and they do not contradict but complement one another.” (Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 194)

THS 571 110

Session XIX Believers Church Theology The Work of Christ as Atoning Sacrifice

Introductory Comments: - Christ’s work is uniquely suited to His place in the triune being of God. We study the person of Christ in order to understand the depth of the atonement

- Who He was specially fitted Him for what He was to do.

I. Stages in Christ’s Work a) Humiliation – Incarnation. Jn 1:14 – the Word became flesh

- Phil. 2:6-7; Gal. 4:4. His humility and subjection under human conditions. He gave up equality with God. He gave up, as we have seen, the independent exercise of His will. He took the form of a servant or slave and was born in a manger. He was born under the law and thus fulfilled it. He was circumcised, brought to the temple and was fully Jewish. He was humiliated, even unto death, and descended into Hades. b) Exaltation – Resurrection

- He overcame death, hell and the grave; undoing the power of sin. His resurrection is the crux of the Gospel story: highly debated. The empty tomb stands as witness; as do the apostles.

- His resurrection was bodily and yet glorified, Jn 20:25-27. Ours will be patterned after His, I Cor. 15:44 . As such, it represents the triumph over sin c) Exaltation – Ascension and Session at the right hand of the Father

- Here Jesus reassures his position with the Father and the Spirit. He foretold this on a number of occasions, Jn. 6:62; 14:2; 12; 16:5,10,28. Luke also spoke of this event, Lk. 24:50-51; Acts 1:6-11. It is an important theme in Paul, Eph. 1:20; 4:8-10; I Tim. 3:16. So also the book of Hebrews - 1:3; 4:14; 9:24.

- His ascension is a translation into another realm. It is a translation of his whole being back into the presence of God. His humanity remains intact. His ascension facilitated the returning of the Spirit, Jn 16:7. He also went “to prepare a place for us” Jn 14:2-3 - The Spirit carries out the work of redemption through believers. As the ascended one He is still present in the power of the Spirit, Matt. 28:20. His ascension is to a position of authority and power at the right hand of the Father, Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:33-36; Eph. 1:20-22. In this position He is ever making intercession, Heb. 7:25. 111

d) Exaltation – the Second Coming – Parousia

- This brings Christ full circle in terms of redemption. His coming is known only to the Father, Matt. 25:31. At His coming every knee will bow, Phil. 2:10-11.

II. The Functions (Offices) of Christ; Prophet, Priest and King a) The revelatory role of Christ – Christ the Prophet

- As prophet, Jesus reveals the Father to us. He clearly understood His role as prophet, Matt. 13:57. The crowds hailed Him as a prophet at His triumphal entry, Matt. 21:11. His prophetic ministry fulfills and extends all prophets before Him.

- His prophetic office both stands in, and transcends the Old Testament understanding. He declares that on the day of the Lord he will come again, in fulfillment of prophecy. He proclaims good news (Is. 40:9; 52:7) as the Good News.

- His revelatory role transcends time and space. His incarnation is a continuation of His role as revealer in time. He continues His revelatory role in and through the Spirit, Jn. 14:26. He will finally reveal God’s eternal plan at the eschaton. I Cor. 13:12; I Jn. 3:2 b) The Kingship of Christ – His Lordship. He is often referred to as King

- Is. 9:7 says that e will sit on David’s throne. His righteous rule will last forever, Heb. 1:8 and He brings with Him the kingdom of God, Matt. 13:41. His Lordship is from everlasting to everlasting, Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:17. He is Lord of creation and Lord of the church, Col. 1:18. His humiliation does not entail His abdication of the throne, Phil. 2:9-10. At the eschaton His rule and reign will become complete. c) The Reconciling work of Christ: Intercession and Atonement

- His high priestly prayer is for our reconciliation to God and one-another. His reconciling work continues at the right hand of the Father. His atoning work is the basis of His reconciling power. That makes the Atonement the crucial point in Christian theology. Therefore, the Atonement is the place where Christ’s ontological reality as the God man has practical implications for our salvation.

- Our doctrines of God and Christ here show themselves to be true or false, in terms of their ability to effect our reconciliation. Only and effective atonement can meet the human need of salvation from sin and death.

III. Theories of Atonement – A rich and complex doctrine 112

- Sometimes the abundance of Biblical material leads to an abundance of theological theories. Such is the case with the atonement. a) The Socinian Theory of Atonement as example

- Faustus and Laelius Socinus (16th century) developed this theory. They rejected vicarious atonement in terms of satisfaction. Their whole theory is built on I Pet. 2:21 – Christ is merely an example of suffering love. The death of Christ filled our need for an example and demonstration of love, which we can follow. They ignore many Scriptures that deny their view. For example, their reading of I Pet. 2:21 ignores the context of substitution in vs. 24. They claimed our redemption is based solely on our adoption of Jesus teaching and example. This view greatly influenced the Enlightenment. b) The Moral Influence Theory: Atonement as a demonstration of God’s love

- Developed by Peter Abelard (1300’s) and later, Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). They saw God’s nature as essentially love. Thus, we need not fear His justice and judgment because the atonement demonstrates this love. Our own attitudes keep us apart from God, not God’s just punishment. Sin is sickness for which God’s atonement in Christ is the universal cure. Our awareness of the demonstration of His love influences our decision to be for Christ. c) The Governmental Theory: Atonement as a demonstration of Divine Justice

- Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) understood God’s holiness and justice as absolute, and disobedience is a serious matter requiring serious consequences. Sin, as disobedience, is a violation of God’s law and deserves punishment. But God’s love tempers the implementation of His justice.

- While God has the right to punish sin; He is not mandated to do so. Thus, God has acted in such a way as to govern our disobedience. He acts with a view to the best interest of those under His rule. “It was necessary, therefore, to have an atonement which would provide grounds for forgiveness and simultaneously retain the structure of moral government. Christ’s death served to accomplish both ends”. (Erickson, Introducing…) According to Grotius, Christ’s death was not a penalty but a substitute for the penalty. It was a limited display of the results of disobedience, a deterrent.

- Thus, Our turning to God for forgiveness shows God’s good government. God can forgive sins without a breakdown in His sovereignty and justice. There is, of course, little Scriptural basis for this view. Is. 42:21 are sometimes referred to. It is inferred from the general sense of Scripture.

d) The Ransom Theory: Atonement as victory over the forces of sin and evil 113

- This is claimed by most theologians to be the standard view of the church Fathers, (Gustaf Aulen). It dominated all other views until Anselm and Abelard. Origen was one of the major promoters. He saw creation as a cosmic drama. Origen considered Satan to be the ruler of the created realm. God will not interfere in the same manner as Satan did, and therefore offers a ransom to Satan.(Mk. 10:45)

- The question surrounds the recipient of the ransom. According to Origen God deceived Satan into receiving the soul of Jesus as payment for Sin. His release from of Satan through resurrection meant the loss of control of Satan over all Creation. Thus, it is also referred to as the triumphant view of the atonement as expressed in the Latin term Christus victor. The ransom theory is very problematic on Biblical grounds. Theologically, it is difficult to conceive of God as a deceiver. Rom. 6:6-8; Gal. 3:13. Christ nullified the control of Satan through a once for all sacrifice as our substitute and this is a victory, but the “transaction” took place between the Father and the Son. e) The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement: Atonement as compensation of the Father

- This is the most objective of all theories. It emphasizes Christ’s death as a satisfaction of God’s righteous demands. Anselm is the first to fully express it. In his book, Cur Deus Homo, “Why God Became Man?” Anselm answers that God became man in order to eliminate the power of sin. Sin was a transgression of God’s righteous law, and disobedience reflected on God’s honor. God’s honor must be restored and compensated for. Satisfaction, to be effective, had to be rendered in terms greater than the offense of the offender. Only Christ could do this. Thus, only God could make satisfaction for God.

- Yet, such satisfaction had to be made by man. Thus, it had to be rendered by someone who was God and man. Consequently, the Incarnation is a logical necessity. As the sinless and innocent one, Christ fulfilled the compensatory requirement. Christ did not have to die, but chose freely to do so. Each of these theories possess some aspect of the truth as follows:

1) Christ’s death gave us a perfect example to follow 2) Christ’s death gave us a perfect example of God’s love 3) Christ’s death underscores the seriousness of sin and severity of judgment 4) Christ’s death underscores the victory of God over evil and sin 5) Christ’s death renders satisfaction for God’s righteous demands

IV. The Central Theme of the Atonement a) Background factors – The doctrine of God, creation and redemption.

- The nature of God: the doctrine of Atonement must be seen in this context God is so complete, perfect and holy; therefore He cannot abide sin.

114

- The status of the law: The law is the expression of God’s purpose and will. The law is built upon and proceeds from His nature. To disobey His law is to transgress His nature. It is God’s means of relating to His creation Failure to obey either by commission or omission is a serious offence. Gen. 2:15-17; Rom. 6:23; Gal. 6:8 – Death!

- The Human Condition. Total depravity means our utter inability to overcome sin. Thus, the atonement is needed to do this.

- Christ – as God and man is the only solution. His humanity guarantees our representation. He is one with us. His divinity guarantees the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice. Gal. 4:4-5 tells us that His atoning sacrifice is more than sufficient. This atoning sacrifice was His decision.

- The Old Testament context: Christ as fulfillment of the O.T. is the theme of Hebrews. Old Testament concept of kāphar can mean to cover over; hide from view. This is the concept behind the Day of Atonement. In the Old Testament sacrificial system, God saw the people in light of the sacrifice. Is. 53 makes the idea of vicarious sacrifice clear, and uncontestable. b) The New Testament teaching on atonement

i) The Gospel emphasis carries the Old Testament concept forward. - Christ’s own testimony to His sacrificial death is staggering. He had a profound sense of destiny, Jn. 10:36; 3:17. He understood His death as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, especially Is. 53, Mk. 8:31; Lk. 22:37. He understood it as a “ransom” in terms of satisfaction, Mk. 10:45. He also saw His death as a “substitutionary” atonement, Jn. 15:13, “Greater love has no Man then that he lay down his life for a friend”. His death is on behalf of the whole world, Jn. 18:14. He understood Himself as a sacrifice, Jn. 17:19; Jn. 1:29. As such, He was the true source and giver of Life; so also the Father

ii) The Pauline Writings. “God was in Christ reconciling the world” II Cor. 5:19. - Christ’s death is understood as an act of reconciliation. We are deserving of God’s wrath in every sense of the word, Rom 3:21-26. “But now – in Christ Jesus, a way has been opened up. Paul sees Christ’s death as a sacrifice, I Cor. 5:7; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20. Paul also maintains that Christ died on our behalf, Rom. 8:32; Eph. 5:2; Gal. 3:13; Rom. 5:8; I Thess. 5:10

- Paul regards the death of Christ as propitiatory, Rom. 3:25. The propitiation means more than just covering – it means cleansing. God’s wrath needed to be appeased and the demands of His law met. Propitiation means that God’s righteousness and mercy have been done justice. “So then, Paul’s idea of the atoning death is not simply that it covers sin and cleanses from its corruption, 115

(expiation), but that the sacrifice also appeases God who hates sin and is radically opposed to it, (propitiation)”. (Erickson, Intro…) c) The basic meaning of atonement

- Sacrifice: Hebrews 9:6-15, The once a year sacrifice on the day of atonement, Yom Kippur, is fulfilled in Christ, who is the once for all sacrifice. Heb. 10:5-18 repeats this. He is also the perfect High Priest who now mediates for us i) Propitiation: means both appeasement of God’s justice and the exercise of His love. - Forgiveness follows adequate offering ii) Substitution: He died in our place - He was numbered with the transgressors, Is. 53:12b. He was the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Jn. 1:29. Christ is our sacrifice in that He died “instead of” (anti) us, Lk. 11:11. As such Jesus acts on our behalf, huper, Rom.5:6-8; 8:32; Gal. 2:20. iii) Reconciliation: the end of enmity - - The squaring of the account. God reconciles us to Himself. Reconciliation is God’s act of receiving the world into His favor in renewal or relationship. God turns toward us. d) Objections to the Penal Substitution Theory

i) Some object to the concept of the necessity of atonement. - Why does God not simply forgive sins? But God, law and being require recompense. Moral laxity would be the order of the day. ii) Some object to the concept of substitution. - Is this not unfair to the Son? God, in Christ is the once for all sacrifice who takes the punishment Himself. iii) Some object to the concept of propitiation. - Some see appeasement as an internal inconsistency in God. This fails to understand the nature of God’s wrath and His love. iv) Some object to the concept of the imputation of righteousness - How can Christ be good for us? Our union with Christ entails our perfection, Rom. 8:31 e) Some ramifications of the Penal Substitution theory i) Penal substitution theory confirms total depravity – the cost is great. ii) God’s nature is not one sided – He is loving and just and vice versa. iii) Grace is the only way, through atonement. iv) The effectiveness of the atonement provides security for believers. v) We must never take lightly the salvation we have. I Jn. 4:10.

116

THS 571 Session XX Believers Church Theology Salvation as Justification

Introductory Comments - Most agree that salvation is the application of the work of Christ to the life of the individual. But people differ on the doctrine of salvation from this point on. They differ on:

- Time and Salvation – is salvation present, past-continuous or future. We have been saved, are being saved, shall be saved – which is it? How is sanctification therefore related to justification? Is salvation punctilliar, serial punctilliar, a discontinuous process, an overlapping process or a single continuous process through discernable stages?

- Need and Salvation – i.e. does it have primarily a vertical dimension separation from God as primary human problem. Is it the need for Horizontal Reconciliation, i.e. “Relational Theology”? Is the need one of an internal matter for self assertion and acceptance?

- The Medium of Salvation – How is it obtained? Is it physical and sacramental as in Catholicism, i.e. infusion of grace through the sacraments. Is a physical act performed by a priest sufficient? Is salvation conferred through moral action – e.g. Liberation theology? Is salvation a spiritual matter mediated through the Spirit by faith?

- Direction of Salvation – How does salvation occur? Is it individual or corporate? Is it achieved through social action of the collective? Or through repentance and individual action?

- Extent of Salvation – Who? How many as in limited atonement, election, universalism? Does salvation transcend time in terms of the past?

I. Some Current Conceptions of Salvation a) Salvation in Liberationist Theologies

- Latin America, Feminist, Black and Third World theologies are quite prominent. The unifying themes of liberation theology are salvation through praxis and Liberation from oppression. The method of salvation is situation specific but can include violence. The political (Capitalist) situation has created oppression and is evil. The Scriptures identify with the oppressed (esp. Luke) and Exodus. Salvation is primarily temporal – There is not much thought of eternity. 117

b) Existentialist views

- Some say there is no salvation at all eg. Nietzsche. Who were the Existentialists. The most prominent were Soren Kierkegaard, Frederic Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camu, Jean Paul Sartre, and Karl Jaspers. The Existentialist Rudolf Bultmann built his theology on the existentialism of Heidegger. The aim of Heidegger’s thought was to bring us to “authentic existence” dasein (“being there”). Thus salvation is achieving our true humanness through the active life. Action makes us who we are, we are in light of the past and anticipation of the future. Thus there are two tendencies in humanity – authenticity or in- authenticity. For Bultmann, Christ shows us the authentic humanity. We are not called to secure our existence or deny it but to be the self. Salvation consists in a fundamental alteration of our existence toward authenticity. c) Other secular and Postmodern approaches to salvation

- People in contemporary culture have cut themselves off from eternity and exist only in the here and now. If they are not theoretical theist they are practical atheists. We have put confidence in the economy, technology, knowledge and science. Religion, if it is personal, is fine, but its scope is limited to the private sphere. Salvation in the west consists today in the gathering and manipulation of information for security. God is dead, the self is lost, history is at an end and the book is closed. Salvation, if such a thing exists, is only a temporal condition. The death of God theology is the pinnacle of modern thought. Mark C. Taylor suggests that self-affirmation in the face of the other is a salvation of sorts.

a) Roman Catholic Concept

- There are divergent opinions within RC. Official salvation is still to be had in the church through sacraments. Rahner thinks salvation can be had in other religions. Yves Congar thinks it can be had by degrees of membership in the church. The Vatican II document and later evangelicals allow for a broader understanding of church as “invisible.” The Catholic church seems more open to justification lately through the joint declaration and Küngs work on K. Barth.

b) Salvation in the Evangelical view

- The human predicament requires a divine act of grace. God is the prime mover in salvation and faith in Christ is the means. The Evangelical view includes aspects of the other views but takes a more Biblical approach. The important questions have to do with the process, means and extent of salvation, all of which are determined by our starting point in God’s foreordination, predestination and election.

118

II. Antecedent Issues: Salvation and Predestination a) The Calvinist position

- The concept of predestination is clearly taught in Scripture even though the concept is not always clear. Some consider it an obscure and strange doctrine. Despite its controversial nature, we are required to deal with it. The fact that it is difficult does not excuse us from looking into it. But of course you are free to differ on these matters here. Students are encouraged to decide on this matter for themselves, and are not required to take a particular line of interpretation in this class. I respect the right of those in other, more Arminian traditions to differ with my position, which is moderately Calvinist.

- Calvinist claim that Predestination is the action of God who, in His foreordination, elects some to eternal life and others to eternal death. The “elect” are saints, the “reprobates” are the damned. Calvin and Arminius have been central to the debate. What Calvin taught and what is often called Calvinism can be two different things at times. Calvin says, “We call predestination God’s eternal decree by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition, rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.” Vol. 2, p. 926. The principles of ‘Calvinism’ are as follows:

- Total depravity – Unconditional election – Limited atonement – Irresistable Grace-- Perseverance: This TULIP statement is the traditional 17th century Calvinist position. Total depravity means – so lost in sin we are unable to save ourselves. In his sovereignty, God elects some to his favor (predestines): Eph. 1:4-5. Our election is in Christ before the foundation of the world. This election is unconditional, i.e. without merit on our part. Rom. 9:15-16. This election is irresistible – All who are chosen will come. Jn. 6:37. This election of us in Christ is congruent with his election of Israel. In Romans 9, Paul argues that they are all the free choices of God. Ex. 33:19. Thus, election is the free choice of God’s sovereign will before creation. Therefore this election ensures our Preservation until the end.

- Such election is efficacious in that all will come and be saved. Such an election is from all eternity in God’s election of Jesus Christ. Such an election is unconditional and unmerited favor of God’s grace. Such an election is immutable. God does not change his mind. The immutability of God is central to this Calvinist perspective.

119

Free Will and Election

- Calvinists insist that this does not contradict the biblical understanding of the freedom of humanity. That is, they understand human freedom as a freedom in limitation. Sin has limited our ability to choose properly. Like a bird with broken wings, we are free to fly, but cannot. How can we come to God when we love the darkness of sin, Jn. 1:6f. Only be God’s prevenient grace are we able to come to God.

- Some are of the persuasion that God, in his foreknowledge, knows those who will decide for him, elects them and passes over those he knows will choose otherwise. These are predestined by omission. a) Arminianism – Again there is great elasticity here from Dutch Arminianism to English Methodism.

- The Arminian views include liberals, Evangelicals, and Catholics in their ranks. The logical starting points of Arminianism are the passages like – II Pet. 3:9; I Tim. 2:3-4; Ez. 33:11; Acts 17:30-31. There is a general sense in Scripture that God “desires” the salvation of all. The invitation to “come” so often repeated in the Bible is sincere.

- Arminians also affirm the complete human ability to meet the conditions for salvation – namely the act of faith. This view is possible if we modify or deny the doctrine of total depravity. Or, as John Wesley preached, we have a strong doctrine of prevenient grace – i.e. grace given to all indiscriminately. Prevenient grace is a universal phenomenon available to all. Consequently there is no real need for special irresistible grace. Arminians also affirm the foreknowledge of God in his electing grace – He chooses some and passes by others. The elect are those whom he foresees will accept the offer of salvation by their own free choice – Rom. 8:29; I Pet. 1:1-2. But this foreordination is only a knowledge of what they will do, not a determination of what they will do.. Arminians also consider predestination open ended and not unconditional – one can fall out of the will of God. Arminians accuse Calvinists of fatalism and a negative inducement to ethics. They also accuse Calvinists of begin a negative inducement to Evangelicalism. They claim that Calvinism contradicts human freedom. b) Towards a Consensus

- Here we must keep in mind the eternal decrees of God. The question is, did God favor some over others in election? The Biblical material, indeed the whole of salvation history, seems to be based on just such a decision – Abraham, Israel, David, etc. Sometimes God elects others to various tasks and situations. Cyrus- Pharaoh. Scriptures also make it clear that humanity is hopelessly lost. Rom. 1-3. They are furthermore incapacitated in terms of autosoteric ability. They are spiritually blind. Rom. 1:18-23; II Cor. 4:3-4. Here Arminians posit prevenient 120

grace, but it cannot be justified in Scripture. On the other hand, text supporting divine election to faith abounds. Jn. 6:44. Jn. 15:16; Jn. 6:37; Acts 13:48. Also God’s foreordination is not a product of his foreknowledge. Foreordination has to do with election not foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge confirms his foreordination of the elect. The invitation is cast in general terms; but the response is cast in specific terms of election. “God sincerely offers salvation to all, but all of us are so settled in our sins that we will not respond unless assisted to do so.” If prevenient grace does exist, why is it not more effective. Those who are called will respond because God’s grace is so appealing.

Implications of Predestination

1. God’s sovereign will is the ground upon which we must and can stand – He will fulfill his plan. 2. The rejection of salvation is not a reflection on the evangelist. 3. Evangelism is still the means whereby God gathers the elect. 4. Grace is absolutely necessary for salvation. Sola gratia.

III. Subjective Aspects of the Salvific Paradigm a) Effectual calling - How do we square the subjective aspects of salvation with God’s sovereign election.

- We answer that God’s action must intervene in an effectual calling. It is apparent from Scripture that there is a general calling to salvation, an invitation to all persons. Matt. 22:14; 11:28. Special calling means that God works in a unique way to bring us to him enabling us to respond in repentance and faith – it is effectual. His calling of the disciples is a good example of this. So also Paul. When we hear the gospel, the Spirit calls us through conviction and illumination. This is necessary due to our depravity. I Cor. 2:6-16. Thus, the proclamation of the Word is necessary for effectual calling. This is a narrower understanding of prevenient grace. b) Conversion – a radical change in character and direction.

- Conviction - preceeds confession - preceeds repentance - preceeds faith and then conversion. Ezek. 18:30-32; Eph. 5:14; Acts 3:19 – Conversion is a ringing theme in Scripture. Repentance – µετανοια means complete reversal of mindset, e.g. Nicodemus, Paul, Stephan, Philippian jailer. Conversion can be instantaneous or a process. But only one primary conversion. c) Repentance – Sin is repudiated before, during and after conversion.

- The Old Testament calls it grieving over sin. The New Testament µετανοια – Acts 2:38. It is a prerequisite to salvation and sanctification. Repentance is Godly 121

sorrow for ones sin and a resolve not to return, Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Acts 17:30. Faith – the positive aspect of laying hold of Christ and his work.

- In the Old Testament it is confidence in the covenant, which God makes with Israel. In the New Testament Pisteuō and Pistis means intellectual assent, I Jn. 4:1; Matt. 8:13 It also means personal trust in terms of complete dependence of being in. Mk. 1:15; Acts 10:43; Jn. 1:12; 2:33; 3:18. Belief in the name is belief in his saving power. Both intellectual assent and trust are needed, but the latter is most important. Faith and reason are not antithetical, but there is a definite order. c) Regeneration – the work of God’s cleansing Holy Spirit

- It is God’s transformation in justification and through sanctification. Our human nature needs reformation, new birth. In the Scriptures it is represented as “Giving us a new heart”, Ps. 51; Ezek. 11:19-20. It is in the New Testament a rebirth – Jn. 3; Titus 3:5. We are “born anew from above.” We are also “born of the Spirit” at salvation. We are born of God “born through the word of God”. Regeneration means first, mortification and second, verification. It is our transformation by the Spirit into the image of God. Here we are on the border of sanctification. Rom. 6:1-11. It is both instantaneous at justification and a process of sanctification. This makes the new birth an absolute work of God. d) Theological implications of the subjective aspect of salvation

1. Human nature cannot be altered in any positive way by human efforts. 2. No one can control who will and will not experience new birth. 3. Saving faith requires correct belief regarding the nature of God, but it also requires personal commitment. 4. Saving faith requires confession of sin and repentance. 5. Conversion is entirely individual. 6. The new birth is not dependent on feeling – but feeling will be there.

122

THS 571 Believers Church Theology Session XXI Sanctification and Faith

Introductory Comments - Here again we face a difficult question. How are justification and sanctification related? The role of faith is once again crucial to our answer to this question. There is a real danger here of lapsing into a works righteousness.

- The role of the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier is the missing link in many attempts at the doctrine of sanctification.

I. Sanctification defined a) The meaning of Sanctification; hagios – to be holy or set apart.

- That is, holiness is seen in terms of likeness to God. Sanctification is the process whereby we are transformed from a broken image, to the image of God’s own Son for the sake of glorification. Rom. 8:1-31. As such, it builds on justification but is not to be confused with it. It begins from the point of the Spirit’s dwelling in us at justification. It is the application to the believer of the finished work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. b) The uses of Sanctification

i) We are sanctified in terms of being set apart from the profane and mundane. (O.T.) We are also sanctified in terms being set apart as a people of God, I Pet. 2:9. The term “saint” therefore applies to all the “living stones” of God’s “temple”, I Cor. 1:2.

ii) We are also sanctified in terms of moral transformation by the Holy Spirit. This sense is secondary to the first and follows as an effect of the first. In the power of the Spirit we are transformed into righteous and pure individuals. Where justification is instantaneous and declarative, sanctification is position and process. Sanctification is a life long process and will not be completed here. Justification as a position is assured, while sanctification varies in intensity, though it to is assured in the eschaton.. Justification is God’s objective declarative statement regarding our position before Him. Sanctification is the subjective work of the Spirit bringing to fruition Christ likeness c) Characteristics of Sanctification – How can we identify it in our lives?

i) It is first and foremost a supernatural work – God is the one who works in us. I Thess. 5:23; Eph. 5:26; Titus 2:14; Heb. 13:20-21 ii) It is progressive, Phil. 1:6; I Cor. 1:18, that is, “from glory unto glory” 123

iii) It aims at likeness to the person of Christ, Rom. 8:29, “to be conformed to…” iv) It is supernatural in terms of the Holy Spirit’s agency; Gal. 5:16-25; Rom. 8:1f v) It is at first passive and then active; God commands and empowers, we obey; Phil. 2:12-13; Rom. 12:1-2, 9, 16-17.

d) Sanctification cannot be completed in our present state.

- The concept of “entire sanctification” is a pipe dream and cannot happen in this lifetime. The idea of entire sanctification has its roots in Pelagianism. If you claim one can finally achieve sinless ness, I say, “Show me who.” Wesley and Finney were very wrong here and have caused theology much grief. Entire sanctification is based on texts taken out of context; e.g. Matt. 5:48, “be ye perfect…”; c.f. I Thess. 5:23; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 13:20-21. Clearly the Scripture tells us we will struggle with sin for the rest of our natural lives; I Jn. 1:8-10; Rom. 7. The reason is that we can never achieve Christ likeness in our fallen world. Sin is pervasive in terms of omission and commission preventing our final perfection here. When Jesus calls us to be “complete” he has an eschatological view in mind. The standard to aim at is to be made into the image of Christ. We can move toward completion now in full expectation of future finishing. While sin will persist, we can and will persevere in the power of the Spirit. The true Christian is continually molded into the likeness of Christ despite sin.

II. Perseverance: Kept by the Power of God a) Will we be “kept by the power of God” or is salvation unsure?

- Does eternal security necessarily imply ethical laxity? Hebrews tells us that we are to “preserver” until we are received into the kingdom and experience the final rest of God. Heb 4:11-19. But there are two interpretations of Hebrews here. Heb. 6:11-12. The Calvinist and Arminian view. b) The Calvinist view as opposed to Arminus.

- Both agree on the sanctifying power of God and His faithfulness. Both agree that salvation is not of works but of grace. Both agree that the Holy Spirit is the agent of sanctification, and both are convinced that salvation is the complete and effective work of God. But they disagree on two crucial points related to faith. Calvinists affirm that since God has elected us out of the mass of fallen humanity, the elect will necessarily receive eternal life. To lose ones salvation is to say the God’s election is ineffectual. Thus, the Saints must “persevere” through to salvation. This is supported by the following Scriptures, I Pet. 7:3-5; Phil. 1:6; Rom. 8:31-39; Heb. 7:25; Jn. 11:42; Rom. 14:4; I Cor. 10:13; Jn. 10: 27-30; II Tim. 1:12, “I know whom …” Calvinists also infer that other doctrines support this, Jn. 15:1-11 relating to the decrees of God.

124 c) Arminians – Believed one could lose ones salvation. Matt. 24:3-14

- Paul seems to suggest this possibility in Col. 1:21-23a. Arminians see the call to “continue in the faith” as a tacit statement of a soteria; Heb. 6:11-12; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-27. But where Scripture shows apostates, they are clearly seen as non- elect, I Sam. 28:6; cf. I Tim. 1:19-20; Hymanaeus, II Tim. 1:19-20. They also say the Calvinist view conflicts with human freedom d) Can we reconcile these views – do we have to choose one view?

- Jesus makes it clear that those who have eternal life “will never perish”. The Heb. 6:4-6 passage is problematic. Is the person in view 1. Genuinely regenerate 2. Not genuinely regenerate or 3. Hypothetically lost and yet saved.

- The fact that the phraseology is “conditional” does suggest that this is a hypothetical position. The referents in vs. 4-6 who could be lost are those in vs. 9 who are actually saved. While Heb. 6 suggests that we can fall away, Jn. 10 teaches that we “will not”. This preserves our freedom and yet God’s sovereign power to keep us. Without these warnings we would have less of a moral sensitivity. Thus, we persevere through our steadfast faith in the power of the Holy Spirit Rom. 5

- “The practical implications of our understanding of the doctrine of perseverance is that believers can rest secure in the assurance of faith that their salvation is permanent; on the other hand we must be on guard against moral or spiritual laxity. Assurance of salvation, the subjective conviction that one is a Christian, results form the Holy Spirit’s giving evidence that he is at work in the life of the individual.” (Erickson, 333)

III. Glorification – The Final Position in Christ. Rom. 8:29-31

- Here sanctification and eschatology overlap in terms of the now and not yet. Glorification is both an individual aim and corporate destiny. It even entails the completion of creation. Rom. 8:18-25. a) The meaning of glory (Heb. Ķābôd) is splendor, greatness and completeness.

- Ps. 24:7-10; Is. 6:1-6. in Old Testament it is God’s alone after the Fall. The New Testament Doxa means brightness, completion, fullness and likeness. Jesus is the ultimate standard. Jn. 1:14-18; 17:1-5; Acts 3:13-15. b) Glorification of the believer – “We shall be like Him”

- The Scriptures tell us that “those whom He justified He also glorified” and that the new Adam brings the new image – i.e. renewed Adam, Rom. 5:9-10. Then 125

spiritual and moral perfection will coincide, Col. 1:22. We shall be spotless and blameless, Eph. 1:4; Phil. 1:9-11; I Cor. 1:8 Then we shall know him for we shall see him as he is – I Cor. 13:12; I Jn. 3:2. Our whole being, body and Spirit will be involved, Phil. 3:20-21. The mortal will be swallowed up in immortality. I Cor. 15. We will be made glorious, complete, spiritual and yet embodied.

- Ramm suggests, “In short, the attributes of the resurrection body may be equated with the glorification of that body. This glorification is no process, no matter of growth, but occurs suddenly, dramatically at the end of time.” c) This will also entail the renewal of all creation

- Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-25; “The whole of creation groans…” Rev. 21:1-2, 5 tells us “behold I make all things new”. The doctrine of preservation and recreation of creation guarantees salvation will never be lost. Thus we live in the light of “the Hope of Glory”.

126

Believers Church Tradition Session XXI-XXII

The Nature of God’s People

Introductory Comments: * Ecclesiology in the current context.

- In his, Church Maintained in Truth, Han Kung suggests that despite the negative prophecies of Neitzsche, Freud and Marx that, “Christians are confident that there is a living God and that in the future this God will also maintain their believing community in life and in truth.” (The Church Maintained, p. 11) But it may begin to look quite different in the present context.

- Post Modernity and Pluralism threaten to transform the church into something unrecognizable in the future and the question begs itself; will such a form be “the church of Christ”?

- Thus, theology is presented, preeminently, with the problem of the church today. While reformers of the past wanted to change the church, the concept of the body gathered around word and sacrament has never been questioned like it is today. While Vatican II seemed to surrender salvation to other churches in the 1960’s; recently she has reversed this reading of Vat II in a document put out be Cardinal Ratzinger

I. How do we Understand the Church in the World as “Resident Aliens” Today? a) The Church is indeed in the world; but to what extent is the world in the church?

- We have, for all intents and purposes, lost our Christian voice in the West. We are even told today that our voice is no longer needed. So we try to tone down our message to relate to the world, including the suppression of exclusivist Christ language.

- But the doctrine of the church today must remain Christologically focused if it is to survive. His Lordship remains paramount in the current context. The very threat to the Church’s existence demonstrates the need for a strong and clear doctrine of the church that places the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation at its center. b) How then, will the church operate in a pluralistic culture?

- It will most certainly not “apply for a union card in a pluralist establishment by signing away its right to proclaim the only Savior of the world. Regardless of the cultural claims to our intolerance, we must stand with the Gospel and not with culture.

- At the same time the church must present its message and live out its real existence in the world with integrity. As the body of Christ, the Church, the community of faith, must challenge Pluralism with a message that closes the integrity gap between spoken word and deed. We are to “bind up the broken hearted, release the prisoner, set at liberty, give sight,” etc. 127

- In a world that has lost sight of the truth and can no longer hear it, we need to clearly declare the plan and purpose of God as a unified body. Far from an “association” that promotes “detached piety” we need to challenge the culture with a life-changing message. c) The question begged here of course is not really the church’s relation to the world but the church’s (small c) relation to the Church as God understands it.

- In the midst of diversity, within and without the church, it is God’s Church that must be kept in view. It is true that the doctrine of the church cannot be treated in abstraction from the doctrine of Christ and Spirit. But this is not to lead us to an understanding of the church as a “process of redemption”. It is rather the invisible collection of the redeemed.

- The Church is the organ of the ministry of God’s word in and through God’s power (the Holy Spirit). While this may take many forms, including para-church organizations, it is the activity of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Believers that makes the Church the Church. Big C. d) Thus, more than at any time in her history, the Church today needs to be defined in relation to the action of the Spirit.

- The emphasis on the charismata today makes this imperative. The task is to develop a balanced understanding of the role of the Spirit. This must be done in such a way as to “not quench the Spirit” but also to not attribute to the work of the Spirit what is not properly his.

II. The Church as the People of God – Israel as Prototype a) The εκκλησια of God

- The English word church comes from the late Greek word kurioikon which means literally, “the Lord’s house” or “building”. Unfortunately it has become synonymous with the theological conception of the church. The Heb. term qāhāl is more properly the theological conception of the gathered people of God; Deut. 10:4; 23:3; 31:30. This is translated in the LXX by the Greek word εκκλησια and sometimes συναγωγη.

- Even in the New Testament it is the assembly of Israel, the people of God, that is in mind; Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:23. But it, εκκλησια, has also come to designate the gathering of Christians in the New Testament as well. It is used both of the church visible (local) and universal/invisible, e.g. Matt. 18:17; Acts 15:41; Rom. 16:16; Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28; I Cor. 12:28.

- The word was used to refer to “a regularly assembled body of people and often was designated the “congregation” in the Old Testament; Deut. 31:30; Jd. 20:2. It is used both of the Christian congregation “living in one place” and of the church universal “to which all believers belong.” (BAG, 241). As such it is often accompanied with the phrase του θεου χριστου. It is this combination of words that gives εκκλησια its particular Christian coloring. The church, as the gathered people of God, or Christ has its roots in the chosen people of Israel. 128

- Israel is the nation, created by God, chosen to receive both the revelation of God and His favor. He begins with the call of Abraham out of Ur and this call issues in a covenant which promises Abraham seed, land, and a blessing to the nations. He calls Israel out of Egypt and at Sinai codifies the covenant with Israel as the nation of God, chosen and blessed. The prophets, and the Psalms, continually remind Israel of her privileged status as a “Holy Nation” chosen by God; Is. 40:10-11; Jer. 31:33-34; Ezk. 36:25-28. But they are also called to be a “light to the nations”; Is. 42; 46 and 49.

- Brunner puts this into focus for us stating:

“The revelation of God in the Bible is a history. In the Old Testament God manifests Himself to his people through Acts, and at the same time as He thus manifests Himself, He creates His people for Himself. God communicates Himself to His people in the double sense that He manifests to them the mystery of His nature, and that He causes His people to share in His life. “I will be your God and you shall be my people.” The message of the prophets culminates in the promise of a new, final self- communication of God, a Messianic Age, a Messianic reign, when God’s being will be a perfect ‘God with us’.” (Christian Dogmatics Vol. 3) b) Thus, the church can also be understood as “God’s dwelling place”

- The covenant at Sinai was a promise not only to bless Israel and give her the promised inheritance of Abraham, but also to be with her, to dwell (tabernacle) in her midst. The dwelling of God with the people of Israel is represented in the Tabernacle in the wilderness and the Temple in Jerusalem. Twice, the Scripture describes the condescension of God’s Shekinah glory in the Old Testament.

- The center of God’s dwelling with Israel is the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. As it goes with the people, so God is seen to be with them. Here the presence of God is seen as tentative, however, due to Israel’s sin and faithfulness. Indeed, in the end, the presence of God departed. c) The central concept of Israel as the people of God is her “election” to be so. As Karl Barth puts it, κλησις leads unavoidably to εκκλησια.

- God’s choice of Israel to be his people is a choice he made in his free love as the creator; Deut. 7:7-8. His purpose was that they would worship and relate to him. His further purpose was that they would reveal him to the nations. But, Israel in its disobedience failed to realize this calling.

- However, out of Israel, a “remnant” would emerge who would fulfill his purpose for the church. This remnant would be led by the Messiah who would shepherd his chosen people. So the calling of God’s people was no haphazard decision. In the election of every human there is an election of the Body. Barth writes that the church was not a product of the human social impulse.

“Christianity, the community of Jesus Christ, neither arises nor continues in this way. It does not rest on the natural need of union and 129

cooperation felt by those who share a common aim. As the individual himself does not come to Jesus Christ and thus become a Christian under the impulse and in the power of his religions and moral disposition, but only in the virtue of the fact that Jesus Christ calls him and thus unites him with Himself, so it is in Jesus Christ himself, not in a second but in and with the first calling of the individual, who calls these individuals in their plurality and unites them with one another. He would not be who He is if in the truth and power of His own word He did not do both these things, and therefore the second in and with the first. (CD IV/3/2, 682)

- Christ is the one who, in electing us, elects the community of faith. As the one elected by God to be for us, we are elected in him to be for him and each other. As such we are constituted a special people in Him. As such He places us in community. “There is no vocatio, and therefore no unio cum Christo, which does not as such lead directly into the communion of the saints.” (CD IV/3/2, 682)

- As members of the εκκλησια we “are always members of the same distinctive people, set in the sphere of the one brotherhood constituted by their teacher, in one community founded and maintained by him as the Lord who calls them all.” (CD IV/3/2, 683)

III. As the Chosen People, We Are Chosen in Christ:

- The locus of the identification of Israel as the people of God and the Christian church as the people of God is Jesus declaration of the arrival of the kingdom of God. a) The church is the fulfillment in nuche of the Old Testament anticipation of the Kingdom of God; II Cor. 1:20.

- We are now the “Royal priesthood, the Holy nation, the Chosen people.” Christ is the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes for land and nationhood. John the Baptist saw Jesus as the one who would come and fulfill all righteousness. “In the Scriptures, God’s Kingdome is the shadow of his presence; not so much his domain as his dominion; not his realm but his rule. God’s Kingdom is the working of his power to accomplish his purposes of judgment and salvation.” While Jesus restricted his kingdom work on earth “to the lost sheep of Israel “he predicts that “it will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce fruit.” Matt. 15:24; 21:42-43 b) Christ, on this basis, begins to reveal his church as the “Rock”

- The phrase, “upon this Rock” means then, that upon those like Peter who recognize his kingship and Lordship, Christ will build his church. That is, the church is built upon the foundational witness and word of the apostles and prophets. Peter and the apostles, represent the new order upon which Christ will build his church. Against which hell shall not prevail. Matt. 16:18. Jesus came as Lord precisely to gather his remnant flock, and make them heirs of the promised kingdom; Lk. 12:32. In the confession of Jesus as Lord, we have the church spoken of. They are his flock, with one Lord, one faith and one baptism one God and Father of us all

130

c) As such this remnant is the “new Israel” grafted into the covenant

- Where formerly they were not a people, now they are; Eph. 2:12. Gentiles are now included in the commonwealth of the covenant as heirs of the promise; Eph. 2:19. We are a “new humanity” in Christ; Rom. 5:12f.

- This means that we are now “Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:29; Rom. 4). “The ethnicity of the new people is now spiritual rather than physical, making the bonds stronger and the brotherhood more intense.” We are a family of “Spiritual Ethnics”. d) But now Christ continues to shepherd us by his indwelling Spirit.

- “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” As the Lord of the covenant he dwells among us. The church is the place where his children know him and are known by him, called by him and obedient to him. We are his children begotten by Word and Spirit.

- The Spirit is the origin of the Apostolate and the community, the people of God. By this power the disciples were enabled to speak of the mighty work of God. The Spirit himself, is present, God the Spirit, the Lord who is the Spirit. This was his invasion, incitement and witness to what is God and “what has been given us by God”, says Barth;

“It was the Spirit whose existence and action made possible and real (and real up to this very day) the existence of Christianity in the world. Up to this very day the Spirit calls into being the existence of every single Christian as a believing, loving, hoping witness to the Word of God. The Spirit does this certainly and irresistibly, for he alone doe this. ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.’”

- In the community of the Spirit therefore, evangelical theology and the church it represents can only be pneumatic, spiritual theology. “Only in the realm of the power of the Spirit can theology be realized as a humble, free, critical and happy science of the God of the gospel. Only in the courageous confidence that the Spirit is the truth does theology simultaneously pose and answer the question about truth.” (Barth, Evang. Theol., 55). But, the Spirit can depart from the church and theology in two ways.

1) When it stands in out and out fear of him; i.e. when theology does not muster courage and confidence to submit itself fearlessly and unreservedly to the illumination, admonition, and consolation of the Spirit. It refuses to permit itself to be led by him into all truth.” “By such refusal, the church fails to give, in its inquiry, thought and teaching, the honor due to the Spirit of the Father and the Son that was certainly poured out for our sake.” [see p. 57] 2) The church and theology may fail to acknowledge the vitality and sovereignty of this power (the Spirit) which defies all domestication.” The Spirit blows where it wills - The Church cannot suppose it can deal with the Spirit as though it can take possession of him. c.f. conclusion p. 58. “In the power of the Spirit, however, the Church is a chosen and sanctified community of disciples.” As learners, servants and witnesses, none of which can happen without the Spirit. 131

THS 571: Session XXIV

Theology of the Believers Church Tradition The Church as God’s Sent Peoples

Introductory Comments:

- We need a renewed missiological vision for the church today. Therefore, theology also needs to be about the task of theologically proscribing such a new paradigm

- Herein I am proposing that the Believers Church theology of mission can be taken in this direction by a reinterpretation of the questions what and how, thus requiring a redefinition of the need for a paradigm shift in missiological attitudes in Believers Church Tradition.

I. What is the Church’s Mission; Matt. 28:16-20 – We must begin her

- Here in this passage we have laid out for us the event of the commissioning of the disciples. In the resurrection, Jesus reveals himself to the disciples as the one who held, holds, and will hold all authority, a fact that had hitherto been somewhat hidden from the disciples as well as from the world. It is of this revelation of the risen Lord that the great commission speaks. This is the crucial affirmation of the whole text. It is the charge and commission of the risen Jesus. Let us take a closer look at what the mission is from that perspective. a) “Go therefore and make disciples…”

- That is, reproduce yourself as I have made you. Let my teaching of you be your pattern. Call them into your eschatological community and then commission them. “In the same manner as Jesus ‘make disciples’, the apostles are called to make disciples of all Christians’.

- The sweeping imperative “Go therefore” rests on the authority of Christ. Here the founding, through Jesus word, of the Apostolic Church is envisaged.” The Apostolic Church, therefore, exists not for itself, but for Christ and his Gospel The community of the Apostles is constantly renewed as listeners and teachers. The twofold charge is to κηρυζατε and µαθητευσατε. b) But the command to Go is universal in its scope πάντα τα έθνη

- It means first, that there will be people from among all nations who are received into discipleship. The nations come within the reach of the apostate and its proclamation and receive their calling through the Christian community living in their midst. It is not the nations per se, but people from the nations. It is, furthermore, the ethnē in terms of the goyim, or gentiles, and Israel is included by birthright as the first of the nations to be discipled 132

- “For now the eschatological Israel shall appear, the people gathered by the Messiah who appeared at the end of time.” This is the new eschatological community gathered from Jews and Gentiles. The Apostles mission is this “to the Jew first” but also necessarily, “to the Gentile also” Rom. 1:16 – Indeed the whole of creation; Mk. 16:15. “Through this mission the community of Jesus becomes manifest in his resurrection as the universal community.”

- “It is the eschatological Israel, the Israel which receives into its life and history the chosen ones from among the gentiles. Jesus has always had this open ended view of his disciples as an eschatological community; “as the Israel of the end of time, fulfilling the destiny of the historical Israel, as ‘a covenant to the people, a light to the nations”; Is. 42:6; 49:8. There is no limitation placed on the dominion of Christ in this passage.

- As the “Son of Man” he is for all peoples, nations and languages; Dan. 7:14. He gave his life “as a ransom for many”; Mk. 10:45 – αντι πολλων and shed his blood for many ύπερ πολλων. Is. 49:6 proclaims the Messiah as a “light for the nations”; Is. 49:6. His disciples have already been designated as salt and light of the World.

- While he kept the universal scope of the new community relatively hidden, as he did his power and Messianic identity. Why: “The previous, historical, Israel had not yet run its course before Jesus’ death. His life had not yet been spent as a ransom for many … The table had not been set. The guests could not yet be invited. Israel was not yet fully prepared to fulfill its eschatological mission. This “all nations” in no way contradicts the earlier teaching and practice of Jesus, but rather fulfills his calling to be the source of salvation. The disciples knew this early on and intended after Pentecost, to carry it out. “As recapitulation and anticipation, revealing the hidden reality of the eschatological community, the Great Commission is truly the most genuine utterance from the lips of Jesus.” (Barth, The Great Commission, Quoted throughout this section.) c) Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

- Here we have the means for achieving discipleship in Gospel proclamation. Baptizing is the “priestly function of objectively introducing others into the realm of God’s reign. It is first the function of Jesus through his Spirit. Baptizing in a name meant to administer to someone a symbolic cleansing bath intended to signify attainment of faith. Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to give someone a symbolic cleansing which certifies him or her as belonging to the new, eschatological, Israel. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then, are what the name of the triune God really stands for and we confess to belong to this God.

- A gentile becomes a disciple when he is assured of belonging to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism is the transferal of the Messianic power of Jesus, to include others, to the disciples. Barth writes, “Genuine and significant, furthermore, is the invocation of the name of the triune God at the very moment when the universal existence of the Apostolic church at the end of time is revealed. Repentance and forgiveness of sin is, therefore, to be preached in the name of Jesus followed up by baptism.

133 d) Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.

- “As baptism constitutes the existence and nature of the disciples, teaching constitutes the ways and works of the disciples.” The word “teaching,” Didaskein, includes both teaching and preaching “To become a Christian means to become a Christ to others by participating in Christ’s kingly, priestly and prophetic ministry.

- Jesus freely entrusts us with teaching the “nations” and guiding them in the ways and works of discipleship. Here, teaching has the goal of “keeping”, “preserving” and “protecting”. We are to preserve and protect the Word as the command of God. In teaching “What they have been commanded, they must teach without omission, the whole content of the Gospel. As such, teaching can only be repetitive of the Apostle’s teaching.” e) What about the works of service that flow from Gospel proclamation

- “Healing the sick, raising the dead, making lepers clean, etc.” The Scriptures give us clear evidence that such were not lacking in Apostolic times (one thinks of Peter and the lame beggar). Here the command of Jesus harkens back to his synagogue reading in Luke 4:18 where he claims that his coming means sight to the blind, freedom for prisoners, etc. All of this is realized eschatologically in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “The task of the Apostles and therefore also of the Apostolic Church, consists in baptizing and teaching in light of the sign of the Resurrection. f) Then the promise rounds out our missiology

- Jesus said, “and lo I am with you always …”. We are not alone, left till the eschatological consummation. The Lordship of Christ and the rule of his power applies to the now and the not yet equally. “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I.” Jesus, himself, with all his power and authority, stands behind the apostles when they carry out his command and commission”.

- This is why the church can never speak or act on its own authority and for its own cause. In the mission of the church, “I am with you” means the presence of Christ by the Holy Spirit. As Barth comments, “The church between ascension and second coming is not without a master.” Insofar as the church is in the world, the world must yield to the power and authority of Christ vested in the church.

- In the resurrection Christ speaks and acts. “As the apostles receive and grasp this promise and stand on firm ground, they are the rock on which Jesus builds his church, stronger than the gates of hell.”

- Then says Jesus, I am with you “even to the end of the age.” This signifies the time when the eschaton, ushered in with the appearance of Christ, will have run its course, when the universe will be subject to God’s reign in Christ. “Because of Jesus’ presence, the sum and substance of our text, the Great Commission of the risen Lord to baptize and evangelize is valid throughout the days of this last age.”

134

II. But How Will We Carry Out the Great Commission Until Then?

- The sum and substance of the answer is simply “the Holy Spirit” Acts 1:8 can serve as a map for the initial efforts in Acts, from which we can draw principles for our mission in the world today. As we trace out this power, purpose and plan in Acts 1:8 you will see that it serves as a table of contents for the “Acts of the Holy Spirit” which we have from Luke’s hand. You will have to pardon me if I tend to get a little preachy here. This material was developed long ago and remains at the core of my theology of mission.

The Primary Source: Acts 1:8 a) You will receive power from the Holy Spirit : 8a

- A church can only be effective if the Holy Spirit empowers it. Power is not political clout but God given ability (δυναµις). What kind of power has God given us? Power that accomplishes ministry. The church must remain connected to this source of power. Jn. 15:1-5 b) You will have a purpose – to be my witnesses : 8b

- Evangelism pervades of the purposes of the church including our Discipleship Worship Fellowship and Service. Witnessing is fundamental to the church’s existence (µαρτευρεω - What kind of witness does this church look like?

c) You will have a plan : 8c Jerusalem

- Our responsibility is Jerusalem: the Local Church - But Samaria must come within our scope: the untouchables - The world must form our vision: the challenge to be a missionary d) How is this going to happen for us

1) The church will receive power when, in a unified Spirit she is engaged in true fellowship, sincere discipleship, integral worship and sacrificial service. 2) The church will fulfill its purpose when it approaches D.W.F. and Service in the power of the Holy Spirit. 3. The church will implement its plan more effectively when its mission, membership, ministry, magnifying and maturity are conducted in the power of the Holy Spirit. But the movement must be from command (1:8) to prayer (2:1f) and then to practice (2:42-47). The question is: “Are we going to be a church confined to maintenance mode or are we going to be mission oriented?”

135

III. What the Church Needs in Relation to its Mission and Procedure, is a Paradigm Shift from Maintenance to Mission.

- What hinders the church from the implementation of its missiological calling today. It is, quite simply, a settled happiness with the status quo. What is needed is a paradigm shift form maintenance to mission. In their introduction to what has become a landmark book ( I refer to The Church Between Gospel and Culture) C. Van Gelder and G. Hunsberger offer the following critique of the contemporary North American Church. They write:

“There is a crisis in the life of the churches of North America. The crisis, most simply put, is that the social function the churches once fulfilled in North American life is gone. We are speaking particularly about mainline Protestant and mainstream Evangelical churches.”

- They go on to speak about this in terms of the “uncertainty, malaise, and despair” in churches “disestablished” from places of previous cultural importance. Then they sum it up in this very telling, and I think accurate, description of our present circumstances in relation to the church’s mission.

“The distress caused by this radical change in social role and cultural value manifests itself in various ways: a lack of focus in the midst of a proliferation of church programs, a loss of meaning in the work of clergy and laity alike, and an uneasiness that our faith does not really fit in the world where we live. All these contribute to a certain disease in our congregations. When a pastor is discharged and after all the reasons are given, we still are not sure we know what is really behind it all; when capable and committed clergy or laity experience burnout, and when all or us sit together in worship week by week feeling a hunger and readiness for something more, something beyond what we have thought and done before regarding ourselves and our programs – then the signs are telling us to look again and see what has shifted to cause such strain.”

- But where do we begin, how do we start to grasp the need for a paradigm shift to alleviate this set of circumstances which Don Posterski characterizes as our managing “to be of the world but not in the world”; the reverse of Jesus’ dictum to be “in the world but not of the world”. The history of the church is a history of Renewal; We see this in the movements and personalities such as, Montanism, Hussites, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Whitfield, Wesley too name but a few. What do we mean by Renewal – a move of God’s Spirit on the hearts of people regarding the truth of the Gospel. What are the dimensions of Renewal – what does God require of the church in renewal. I suggest the place to begin in a paradigm shift from maintenance of the status quo to “the church sent on a mission” is with a complete renewal as follows:

136 a) Renewal is first and foremost, personal

- It is necessarily personal and individual in terms of relationship to God. Renewal begins with desire for a deep personal relationship. Personal renewal is a work of the Holy Spirit and results in real change. Personal renewal is contagious and forms the background to corporate renewal. (Wesley) b) Renewal is necessarily corporate – it affects the whole church

- It means the work of the Spirit upon the whole body; I Cor. 12; Rom. 12. As individuals committed to renewal, corporate renewal comes through them. It must become broader and deeper than the experience of a few individuals c) Conceptual or visionary renewal: it is a God given and driven renewal

- As the individuals and body submit to Spirit filled renewal, God begins a re-visioning. Vision is the direct product of personal and corporate renewal. “Unless the Lord build the house”. The church should retain those things that are biblically based but jettison that which hinders. Conceptual renewal is a new vision for the church for its time d) Structural renewal: we cannot put new wine into old wineskins - The church often needs to restructure its corporate life to line up with God’s vision. Structural renewal is simply finding the best forms in our day for living the life of faith. (Wesley). Structures can outlive their usefulness and need to be replaced be new ones. Renewal is not about a method, its about a message to which the method must give way. e) Missiological Renewal: the new wine, not the skin, is the emphasis - This is nothing less than the renewal of the church’s calling and passion: proclamation. As the church is renewed from within, its mission, vision is renewed correspondingly. “The church exists by mission as fire exists by burning.” E. Brunner. A church has not found its full renewal until it becomes mission oriented. Acts 1:8 – Missions begins at home.

Conclusion The key to corporate, conceptual, structural and missiological renewal is personal renewal.

Remember that it is a work of God

What should we do

137

Believers Church Tradition Session XXV

The Church as God’s People Led

Introductory Comments:

- The contemporary emphasis on lay leadership is a much needed corrective in the church today – Note work of Paul Stephens, Brethren Ministry. Tillapaugh. The premise on which we operate in speaking about the leadership of God’s chosen people is “The priesthood of all believers”. I Pet. 2:5; Heb. 7:25; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6.

- As Donald Bloesch notes, “In the New Testament church, one becomes a priest by being united through faith in the one mediator, Jesus Christ. Because we are his brethren, we share in his priestly role by offering spiritual sacrifices to God. By his Spirit we are enabled to intercede, sacrifice, and counsel on behalf of others. Christ brings our sacrifices and intercessions before the Father and thus renders them acceptable and effectual. Christians share in the kingly rule of Christ as well as in his priestly intercession; Rev. 1:6, and therefore fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies of the new Israel as a holy nation and royal priesthood; Ex. 19:6; Is. 42:6; 61:6.”

- The question this raises however, is “Is there a role for an ordained clergy?” The question will not be fully answered in this session, but taken together with our other sessions, we can be affirmed on the basis of Eph. 4:11-16; e.g. equipping.

- The contemporary revolt against, and rejection of the church in terms of form and structure also must inform the way we perceive leadership of God’s people in the Believers Church Tradition. We must continually seek balance. While the free flow of the Spirit is absolutely vital for the Church, so also is the means which the Spirit and Christ provide for its effective leading, equipping and guidance. “The Spirit brings order as well as ardour.” (p. 199)

I. The Means of Ministry a) The Ministry of the Word

- The central task of the Church must always be the ministry of the Word of God. Karl Barth says that at the center of the church’s life, “The world has been the first and will remain the first. It does not say heaven and earth will pass away; but it says, ‘My Word shall not pass away”… “The Word is the primary thing. There is of course word without sacrament, but never sacrament without Word.” (Barth, CD1/1, 79)

- Worship is directed to and informed by the Word, which nurtures us and gives us life. The Word is central to the mission of the Church and where it is absent the church suffers.

138 b) When ministry to God, Church and world are set as goals, a ministry of order emerges to facilitate the process.

- Thus, we must hold together Word and deeds so that nurture and mission are accomplished in the church. The Ministry of nurture proceeds from the fruitfulness and giftedness of the body. But such nurture is best carried out in order. True nurture requires accountability which means order. Love must be complied with discipline and leadership in the church. Grounded in the Word, and ordered in the Word for works of love, the church can be engaged in self nurturing. c) But the church must also be engaged in the Ministry of Mercy.

- Our collective self nurture turns our own faces outward toward the need of the broader community for acts of mercy. Jesus’ whole earthly ministry was one of mercy to the poor, the sick and the sinful. So then, should the church have a ministry of mercy. Thus, in worship we are a ministry to God, inward a ministry to the Church and in mercy a ministry to the world.

II. The Structure of Ministry in the New Testament a) The Church has always suffered from bureaucracy in its structuring of the ministry of the Church.

- The moment we ask how we should order the church and lead it into ministry everybody has an opinion based on the Bible. The impression left by “ecclesiastical clerics and clerks” is that the church is merely paper shuffling. This can happen on the macro and micro scale. Such bureaucratic approaches turn people off. But what E. Clowney says is right, “If formal structures are refused, informed ones will gain their own validity in practice.”

- Leadership emerges despite our best efforts to keep leadership in the ministry of the church polycephelous. Even the most “egalitarian efforts at simple brotherhood” will elect its own elders, deacons or teaching elders. In our culture, when laity want to assert leadership over clergy, quite often a foreign model of leadership is imposed. Thus, we must clarify what we mean by authority in the church. b) Church Authority

- According to Colossians Christ is the head of his body, the Church. All authority is vested in him; Matt. 28:16-20; Col. 1:13-14. The Church, the body of Christ, takes its life from him; Jn. 15:1-15. The Church serves in humility, it does not reign in power – KOG. Thus, the overriding task of leadership in the church is stewardship. “Servant – managers who use their authority only to advance the interests of those they represent and serve.”

- In the New Testament the forms of Church government facilitate this and nothing more. Imperfect and inexact though they are, they are still crucial. The rule of Christ is made effective by the Spirit who illumines and leads. Through the Spirit the Church, leaders and laity are led in ministry. 139

- Our authority in the Church extends over things spiritual, not political or worldly; Jn. 18:36-37; Matt. 22:16-21; II Cor. 10:3-6. Thus, Church authority is grounded in and limited to the Word of God. The Church is the Church only in faithfulness to the Word. So our obedience is not to a person, or office as such, but to the faithful administration of the Church in its faithfulness to the Word.

- We retain a conscientious freedom to disobey when the church goes astray. This was illustrated supremely in Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and the Radical Reformers. There is not papacy, no apostolic succession as such. In today’s world it is “political correctness” that wants to assert the right to our obedience. But, by and large, the church is under authority of Christ and therefore those gifted to lead the body, to which we are to submit; Heb. 13:17; I Cor. 4:21; II Cor. 13:2-10. This includes overseeing membership; Acts 2:41-47, recognizing the giftedness of others; Acts 20:28; I Tim. 5:17; I Cor. 12:28.

- There is also room in the Church for discipline in regard to sin that aims at restoration; Matt. 18:17-18; I Cor. 5:13; II Thess. 3:6-7, 14-15; I Tim. 1:20. But this can happen only under the authority of the Gospel; Lk. 9:49-56; I Cor. 5:5; Gal. 6:1. The problem comes when we begin to treat the church as an organization rather than an organism; I Cor. 12 – the body imagery.

- We must also be prepared to recognize, equip and release the laity into ministry; Eph. 4:11-16. “Organic mutuality requires the joint exercise of church authority. Church government is for service not dominion. While chosen and recognized by the people, church leaders receive their authority through the Holy Spirit who called them, endued them and appointed them for service. Without love, church authority becomes oppressive.” (Clowney, The Church)

140

Believers Church Tradition Session XXVI

The Believers Church in Relation to the World

Introductory Comments:

- We live in an increasingly multi-cultural society. Government policies regarding multiculturalism and pluralism force Christians in Canada to ask how their message will relate to and be spoken of in light of these policies.

- The combination of government policies and immigration, together with the ideologies of pluralism, globalization and postmodernism has placed a particular strain on the way in which the people of God relate to our culture. How do we respond to these issues with a clear, unadulterated Christian message. I propose to engage this question along the lines suggested by Douglas John Hall in his article, “Ecclesia Crusis: The Theologic of Christian Awkwardness” I want to suggest, and demonstrate, that intentional disengagement from the dominant culture, is a necessary precondition for a meaningful re-engagement of that same culture.

- We need to demonstrate this in 3 ways. First, by answering what we mean by disengagement. Secondly, how should such a disengagement proceed and thirdly, how will it facilitate meaningful reengagement of culture. That is, what are some concrete examples (North America as context).

I. Disengagement is a Theological Imperative and Task a) In North America, culture is a cultural establishment of content not form.

- This cultural content consists of fundamental beliefs, lifestyles, moral assumptions. Any disengagement means sorting out what is ours and what is cultural. “To put it quite clearly, for North American Christians who are serious about reforming the Church so that it may become a more faithful bearer of divine judgment and mercy in our social context, there is no alternative to engaging in a disciplined, prolonged, and above all, critical work of theology.” b) In concrete terms, we must become skilled in the art of distinguishing the Christian message from the operative assumptions, values, and pursuits of the current culture.

- The call in our present culture among culturally diverse minorities for us to make a cultural shift within Protestant-Evangelicalism errs in two ways.

1) These groups tend to assume that there is an identity between the Evangelical Protestant Tradition and the White Anglo Saxon Protestant “oppression of the marginalized.” Thus, they call for a reinterpretation of that faith in terms that reaffirms the marginalized. We must cut ourselves off from this Protestant past and identify culturally and theologically with other cultures; even allow our faith to be informed by them. 141

2) The other error among those minorities who want to rid the church of “waspism” is the identification of radical theological positions with “true Christianity”. “They insist that Christianity means advocating economic reforms aimed at greater global justice, or full scale disarmament, or preservation of the species, or gender equality, or racial integration and forth.”

- While many of these ideas are laudable ethical conclusions, they are disastrous theological starting points. Such profoundly altered moral attitudes and specific ethical decisions are consequences of the Gospel. “When we present such consequences of grace and faith as if they were immediately accessible to everyone, we are confusing Gospel and law.” (p. 200)

- Part of the difficulty we face in the current Evangelical and Believers Church Tradition is our “willingness to embrace ideas and trends as defined by the Nation’s media and educational elites, elites that are remarkably unrepresentative of the dominant religious and political culture of our nations recent past,” (p. 200). The Gospel has already put all races, genders and religious cultural identities on an equal footing before God. This is its achievement.

- “If, instead of Gospel what is proclaimed in the churches is nothing more than the kinds of musts and “shoulds” and “ought-tos” that one can hear from any other quarter, along with the ubiquitous language of “rights”, than we cannot expect people to be any more receptive to such explorations than they are in their counterparts in society at large.” (p. 201). We do not change the ethical deeds of a church before we change thought patterns. If we change our thought patterns – including “WASPs” – then deeds will follow.

- “If, however, being Christian continues to mean little more than being predictable middle class evangelicals with a compartment in our lives we call spirituality, then the few exceptional things that congregations occasionally manage to perform ethically will lack any foundation in repentance and faith and will show up as exceptions and not the rule. Many churches engage culture today with the “enthusiasm of the few and the guilt of the many”. Thus, in achieving authentic spiritual change and action in the church, there are no short cuts past theology. d) The vast majority of evangelical laity is unfamiliar with the fundamentals of our theology and largely ignorant of the Scriptures.

- Hall writes in this regard:

“I know that some denominations have been more diligent than others in the area of Christian (theological) education, but from what I can see – even where candidates for ministry are concerned – it is rather ludicrous for contemporary Protestants to boast that we insist upon an educated laity and uphold the principle of Sola Scriptura.”

- The question begs itself as to whether the professionals we train in theology for ministry are well suited in this regard for the church and real life ministry. Recently Gabriel Fackre and his wife Dorothy concluded a survey on “The State of Theology in the Church”. Their conclusion runs as follows. “The vast majority of respondents judged the 142

state of theology in the church to be abysmal, dismal, confused, mushy, sparse, inarticulate and deplorable.” Surely this is also the case in the Believers Church Tradition. All of this raises a crucial question for our situation in the Believers Church Tradition and Evangelicalism.

- Hall writes:

“If there is so little understanding of Christian foundations in our congregations, how can we expect ordinary church goers to distinguish what is Christian from the usual amalgam of religious sentimentalism… until a far greater percentage of church going North American evangelicals have become more articulate about the faith than they are currently, it is absurd to imagine that North American evangelicals can stand back from their sociological moorings far enough to detach what Christians profess from the midrash of modernism, postmodernity, secularism, pietism, and free enterprise democracy with which Christianity in our context is so fantastically interwoven.”

- Mainline evangelical and Protestant denominations must be ready to theologically distinguish the Gospel once again by holding up a “theologia crucis.” A theology of the cross, where atonement, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation are to be had, will become our means of disengaging ourselves form the domination of culture. But, as Hall suggests, this will also entail and ecclesia crucis – are we ready as a church to suffer in the process of disengagement. The movement of our ecclesial life from the private sphere of personal religious enchantment to the public sphere of proclamation of the true gospel will necessarily entail suffering. Disengagement from our current status of being part of the cultural establishment, is a theological task. “But whoever thinks that theology is a remote abstract undertaking has not yet been grasped by the Word of the cross.” (p. 203)

II. An Ancient Dialectic: Not “of” yet “in” a) On what basis can we carry out the disengagement – reengagement model?

- How can we be “in the world but not of it,” as Jesus commands? This ancient dialectic is representative of the real situation for the church which is called to disengage and engage in a continuous process. If we engage as part of the culture, simply as part of it, we cannot effectively engage it. On what basis could we do so. On the other hand, if we are always separate from it, completely different and indifferent, we cannot engage it because of a lack of connection. There is no reciprocity.

- Says Hall, “genuine engagement of anything or anyone presupposes a dynamics of difference and sameness, distinction and participation, a dialectic of transcendence and mutuality.” We are currently in the position of being in culture but yet being disestablished by that culture – so that culture is becoming post-Christian. In trying to distinguish our place, our desire is to remain a part of the establishment. The liberals try to present the “Christian message” in currently intelligible forms “which requires an apologetic that will reinforce this of trust, and cooperation between the church and the sociological segment with which we seem to be making our bed.” Participation and involvement in culture are key. Hall suggests; “We are part of this dominant (secular) 143

culture and we intend to do all we can to keep our standing in it. To that end we will sacrifice many things dear to the tradition.”

- Another possibility however, is here being offered. Should we not agree with George Lindbeck, and the Post-liberals in “accounting the dimension of difference and distance between Gospel and culture.” That is, should we not be kerygmatic rather than apologetic. Lindbeck tells us that, in the engagement between Protestant, evangelical Christianity and culture, “theology should … resist the clamor of the religiously interested public for what is currently fashionable and immediately intelligible. It should instead prepare for a future when continuing de-Christianization will make greater Christian authenticity communally possible,” even desirable by the broader culture. Thus, we should disestablish ourselves, in order to reestablish the Gospel message. Hall’s conclusion is crucial here. Hall writes:

“For I do think that the church will have nothing to say to our ethos, finally, if we simply take our cue from our society and fill it with its ever-changing but always similar demands from the great supply house of our traditions, loosely interpreted. We must stand off from the culture with which we have been so consistently identified, rediscover our distinctive theological foundations, and allow ourselves to become, if necessary, aliens in our own country.” (p. 205)

- This is the position taken by the likes of Karl Barth, G. Fackre and S. Hauerwas. But even beyond this, we must strive for a gospel for the present humanity, not just an eschatological humanity. In this “awkward” position between Christ and culture, we must be in, yet not of, in such a way that we raise the profile of the Gospel.

- Finally, says Hall: “If we are faithful enough to distinguish our authentic tradition and belief from its cultural encrustations, we will have something to bring to the world that it does not already have: that is a perspective on itself; a judgment of cultures pretensions, and an offer of hope! Only as a community that does not find its source of identity and vocation within its cultural milieu can the church acquire any intimations of good news for its cultural milieu.”

III. Reengagement of the World by Quests with the Christian Gospel

- Here, we want to illustrate how disengagement and reengagement might work. We will look at four impulses that all humans share in as longings for something that the performance of our culture has denied to us.

a) The desire for moral authenticity

- There is certainly a desire for moral authenticity in culture. The specter of Aids and war has demonstrated the bankruptcy of “modern morality by and large.” Culture is slowly coming to grips with the fact that private and public morality are inextricably linked.

- All of us struggle with moral authenticity today, publicly and privately. “We hardly dare to examine our own lives, for we sense both their moral contradictions and their deep but largely unfulfilled longing for authenticity.” (p. 208). As Christians therefore, we disengage the old culture Protestantism of Liberal morality, and reengage a morally confused culture with a representation of the Gospel in the best texts of our tradition. The 144

retrieval of the tradition, however, is not for its own sake, but for the sake of those who find themselves in this existential dilemma. Hall asks; “How would Jesus speak to affluent young parents, caught between yuppiedom and genuine concern for their children’s future and asking how to be “good?” Here the question of ethics must quite simply be responded to by a clear proclamation and theological presentation of the Gospel. b) The quest for meaningful community.

- The failure of individualism and the failure of most forms of communitarianism has forced the search for authentic community back onto the agenda of culture. The modern imperial self has been rightly dethroned, and should never be readmitted in any imperial way – though individuals we still are. Liberal individualism, in its Protestant, Evangelical and Believers Church Tradition forms, must learn the lesson that the individual exists in community. At the same time, the attempts to form communal lifestyles around communist or liberationist ideologies has also failed because of their inherent individualism. As the Post war generation grows older, a new sense of interdependence is dawning on them.

- Many who go to church sense a lack of genuineness and feel it to be artificial. Many participate out of frustration and some stop going altogether. “But instead of allowing the specifics of both the quest and its frustrations to challenge and inform our understanding and profession of faith, we retreat into well-rehearsed, rhetorical answers.” We fail, as such, to all theology to inform the communal basis and process.

- If, however, we revive the Pauline answers in Rom. 12, I Cor. 12-14 and Eph. 4, we would find that the Gospel already has this desire for authentic community in view. If we approach the human search for community with our already Biblically informed and theologically under-girded conception of community, with a text within a context, then it would be worth disengaging to do it, in order to effectively reengage. c) The quest for mystery and transcendence.

- We live in the shadow of the broken secular city; in the context of a failed agenda. Technology, its most precious offspring, began more than a decade ago to appear to ordinary people to be a mixed blessing. We have a “knowledge without love.” (p. 210). Technological society, with all its blessings, has also brought devastation on many fronts.

- The flip side of our anxiety with technology has to be a desire for self-transcendence. We have become not rational and free, but a “gray skulking horror – the deviser of Bergen- Belsen.” We are constantly reminded of our one finitude and one dimensionality. The “death of God” which was really the “death of the imperial self” dogs our footsteps. “We try very hard to create depth, to see ourselves against the backdrop of an eternity in which time is enfolded.” “Spirituality” is the new catchword. As modern (and post modern Christians, we too, are products of this spiritual alienation.

“Try as we may, our services of worship bear about them the aura of the theater (and a mostly very amateur one at that) – as though God were really dead and all that remained were our ritual performances for one another.” 145

- But in this disengaging from and recognition of our complicity in this feeling of alienation and desire for transcendence, we discover and meet the transcendent one in our re-appropriation of the Gospel in the riches of the Judeo-Christian tradition. We discover the transcendent within the immanent, in creation as the stage on which the divine human covenant is enacted in Jesus Christ. Says Hall,

“Perhaps, if we were to rethink our own tradition, bearing with us the terrible thirst for transcendence and mystery as it manifests itself in the soul of humanity post mortem Dei, we would more consistently discover the means for engaging it from the side of the Gospel.” d) The quest for meaning.

- Western culture is marked by a feeling of meaninglessness and despair. Secular humanism has come up wanting, but we have closed off the Gospel as an option. Now life is not to be understood as a quest for grand meaning but only individual purpose. Even the existentialist search to become our own essence has ended on failure. Either covertly or overtly all branches of society are seeking meaning even in post modernity. “Under the now-more-conscious threat of non being we are again concerned with our being”. But if we exclude, or ignore the Christian claim, either within or without the church, meaning still includes us. All of us participate in the quest for meaning and in its limitations and defects.

- But withdraw as a Christian for a moment. Discover our meaning in the text of Scripture and its faithful interpretation on the part of those who have found meaning. There we will find meaning and come to culture with fresh insight. Hall’s comments are penetrating:

“But this will be possible only if we expose ourselves less gradually to the cold winds of the late twentieth century and are ready to carry the full burden of its spiritual emptiness and yearning into the presence of the Holy One.”

- Only as we come before the text “empty handed” with only our vacancy of meaning, can meaning be supplied from the Gospel. It refuses accommodation to either the specificity of our questions or the multiple choice of our answers. God does not pick an element in our answers to our meaninglessness with which to identify. Rather he fills up meaninglessness with himself.

Conclusion - We need to “disestablish” and “disengage” ourselves today if we hope to bring anything meaningful to culture. “Until we have learned to distinguish the Gospel of the crucified one from the rhetorical values, pretensions, and pursuits of society, our churches will fail to detect, beneath the rhetoric of official optimism, the actual humanity that it is our Christian vocation to engage.” We must liberate ourselves from the conventions of cultural religion. We are not advocating an abandonment of culture. But a recognition that Christian theology has a responsibility in culture, not to it. We are salt, light and yeast. We must discover the possibilities of “littleness”.

146

THS 571 Session XXVII-XXVIII

Theology of the Believers Church Tradition The Nature of Ministry in the Believers Church Tradition

Introductory Comments:

- Many churches struggle to find an adequate model for ministry today, and often go in the direction of market driven approaches to help. The problem of diversity of styles and emphases usually leaves us with only a partial Gospel and niche ministry.

- Along with these methods we also have pastors who are continually pressured into becoming good managers rather than good ministers. I believe sticking with a clear concise biblical model, through thick and thin, will be most successful.

I. The First Ministry of the Church Must Be the Ministry of Worship

- The WSC tells us that the “chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy … The church is called to serve God in 3 ways: worship, nurture and witness. In today’s context, worship seems anything but fixed and formalized. Worship in today’s churches in the Believers Church Tradition is often agenda driven (i.e. seeker sensitive …). Thus, we need to get this central aspect back in focus in the church. a) Worship is first and foremost giving glory to God. Giving God his place.

- We are exhorted to gather together for precisely this purpose. Heb. 10:19. The creation of humanity in God’s image is his desire to create us for himself. To that end worship is neither religious emotion, nor self projection of our wish fulfillment, which becomes idolatrous. Rom. 1:18-32. God is the transcendent one who draws us into worship. It is AWE.

- It is the exaltation of God above all of his creation. It is more over the self revelation of his name as Savior; Ex. 3:14. Such a revelation challenges our very being and calls us to repentance; Is. 6. It is, finally the glorification of his name in Jesus Christ; Jn. 1:14-18. It is, as such, the glory of God as grace and truth revealed in love; II Cor. 3:18. b) It is God’s will that directs our worship not our method.

- The first two commandments call us to this action exclusively. Idolatry in worship is absolutely forbidden; Deut. 12:30-32. God wills his own worship in his own way. The primary criterion seems to be participation in freedom of conscience – certainly not a passive permission to be placated by the pablum of pageantry that passes for worship in some churches. We must never lose the sense of awe that worship should engender. Hebrews tells us to “worship God acceptably and with awe, for our God is a …; Heb. 12:28-29.

147 c) We need ordered freedom in worship.

- While we are bound by awe, we are not bound by ritual and ceremony. Jesus set the tone here in Jn. 4, “Worship in Spirit and in truth…” We cannot localize God’s presence to the building or the table, but in this people. It is a matter of the heart of every Christian, in the collective called the church, worshipping before God in the heavenlies. Some distinctions are kept.

- We should distinguish worship as an attitude first and an action second. The action should not be done without the proper attitude: but the act is important as well. We also need to distinguish between elements and circumstances. Everything is to be done in a fitting and orderly fashion; I Cor. 14:40. While circumstances may vary from culture to culture, so preaching may take several forms, but elementally, it must remain proclamation.

- To introduce elements foreign to those sanctioned in the Scripture goes beyond any circumstance of worship. It has been made an element of worship in which all worshippers must be expected to participate, sometimes against their will and better judgment.

II. What Then, Are the Elements of Worship a) Preaching the Word.

- The church is founded upon her proclamation and spreads by means of it. The Reformation is a witness to the power of preaching. Preaching lies at the core of worship. It speaks preeminently of Christ. Preaching confronts us with the need to renew and change our lives. Preaching, faithfully carried out, is the confrontation of God’s people with His word. Preaching witnesses to the presence of God among His people calling them to obedient response.

“Because the church is the Lord’s assembly, and because the hearing of the Word of God forms and directs the life of the assembly, there can be no spiritual renewal of the church that does not restore the place and power of preaching.” b) Prayer as the authentic human act.

- Karl Barth saw prayer as the central act of the Christian life. It was the point at which we were to be considered truly free. He writes:

“The obedience of Christians follows from the fact that in Jesus Christ they may recognized God as his Father and theirs, and themselves as his children. Obedience is their action to the extent that it is ventured in invocation (prayer) of God, in which, liberated thereto by the Holy Spirit, they may take God at his Word as their Father and take themselves seriously as his children.”

148

- The life of Christians is one of obedience to this command to the extent that it is a human life whose purpose, will, and work focuses on the one action of invocation of God, and which, in its deepest and highest needs and desires in terms of its achievements, is to be understood in its totality as a life in invocation of God.

- Further, says Barth, “Invocation of God – as real invocation of the real God – is not an action that may or may not be undertaken at will, but one that follows an absolutely superior command. It is a commanded and ordered action of a certain people.” We live our lives in this vocation. “Our Father” “all that we do in obedience can consist only in a repetition, application and concrete expression of this vocative, “Father”.

- Our establishment in prayer takes place in the event of Jesus Christ who enables us to say, “Our Father”, “Obedient to Him as their Lord, they come to be and are set in that un- problematical relationship to God the Father”. Prayer is central to our lives as an act in the Spirit in obedient response to the imperative of the Son to invoke the Father. It is Trinitarian correspondence to the human act of invocation. c) Music as the souls language. The universal language of maranatha.

- Music was long established as an act of worship in Israel; See Deut. 31:19 – a musical rehearsal of the defeat of the Amalakites. The Psalms are understood to be both poetry and songs.

- Song helps us remember and celebrate God’s saving action in history; Ps. 96:3. They also move us to devotion and praise; Zeph. 3:17. Jesus used music at the Last Supper and Paul strongly encouraged the use of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; Rom. 15:9; Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:18-19. d) The ordinances are given to us as thanksgiving and witness.

- Thanksgiving for the grace and sacrifice of God in Christ (Eucharist). Thanksgiving for the new life in the Spirit. (Baptism). A witness to his death and resurrection (Eucharist). And a witness to his indwelling Spirit and power in our lives (Baptism). They are non- sacramental in nature, in that these signs are a symbol pointing us to a reality beyond them.

III. The Church is Also a Nurturing Fellowship

- There is a tension in churches today in regard to where the emphasis should be placed, on mission or nurture. We need to be nurtured in the life of the trinity, whether we are involved in outreach or inreach. Both should be simultaneous. Nurture means the pastoral and parented care necessary for the growth and development of novices in Christ; I Thess. 2:7; Jn. 21:15-17. The mandate for pastoral nurture is an important one in the New Testament. It is considered to be both an equipping task and a guiding task; Eph. 4:11-16.

149 a) The nurtured life happens in relation to a from the perspective of God the Father.

- In Israel’s history, spiritual nurture was built into the family unity; Deut. 6:4-9. The primary model for the Hebrew was God’s dealing with his children; Ex. 4:23; Hos. 11:1- 3. He taught them in both good times and bad times and disciplines when necessary; Deut. 8:5. His Fatherly instruction included directing, protecting, providing and correcting which are constant Old Testament themes; Ps. 23; 32:8-9; 103:6-19; 119; Hos. 11:1-4; Heb. 12:5-11. The tragedy of Israel is the tragedy of a spurned fatherly love. But he still refuses to let go of her. (Hosea as example) b) The nurtured life happens in relation to and from the perspective of God the Son.

- He, on the Father’s behalf, now becomes yoked with humanity; Matt. 11:29. He instructs us concerning the Father, and himself; Jn. 15 and 17. Eph. 6:4 – we are to nurture our children in light of his Lordship. He becomes our example of the life of nurture: He calls us to follow him. Christ not only did a work for us on the cross; but continues to work in us.

- The goal of the Christian life is to become like him; Col. 1:28; II Cor. 5:19. There can be no substitute for the regular ministry of the Word and Spirit. “The renewal of God’s image restores us as heirs of physical life, called to guard the structures of family, sexuality, personality and society that defend life.” Maturity in Christ brings stability in the faith; Eph. 4:13-16. Every Christian has a part to play in the nurturing life of the church.

c) The nurture of the Holy Spirit.

- In all our efforts at nurture in the church; the role of the Spirit is crucial. The concept of spirituality is much abused and needs reconnection to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the author and finisher of our life in Christ; Rom. 8:11. He is there from beginning to end; Rom. 8:1-39 as the presence of God.

- He points us to Christ; Jn. 14. He leads us into the truth and instructs us as to its meaning; Jn. 16. He gives us both truth, and the desire to know the truth more deeply. Thus, a nurtured life will be one “continuously filled with the Spirit.” It includes the inculcation of the fruits of the Spirit; Gal. 5:23f. It extends to the giftedness of the Spirit which edifies. “The wisdom of the Spirit does not offer a supplement to the human mind, but challenges it”.