A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 6.2

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the second part of chapter 6 on resurrection, our final estate, and the first of our faith..

6.
The Third Part of God’s Honour is Prayer,
Which is Declared in General With an Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer

Part 1 


    The Resurrection and the Last Estate

Q.    What should we look for at the hand of our God?
A.    The resurrection of our bodies and eternal life.

Q.    With what bodies shall we rise again?
A.    With these same bodies in substance as Christ did rise.

Q.    But the Apoftle layeth, that our bodies fhal be fpirituall.
A.    That is in respect of their present estate.

Q.    Of what condition shall our bodies be in then?
A.    Free from all corruption and alteration.

Q.    Why should we rise with the same bodies?
A.    So that they may receive their reward with the souls.

Q.    What admonition do we have here?
A.    We should dedicate our bodies to the service of God.

Q.    But will the wicked shall be partakers of the same resurrection?
A.    No doubt, but to their greater confusion.

Q.    Many doubt of this resurrection?
A.    He that fulfilled the first promises may and will perform the rest.

Q.    What kind of life is promised to us?
A.    Eternal life apart from all misery

Q.    What is prepared for the wicked?
A.    Eternal death apart from all joy.

Q.    But yet they shall live eternally?
A.    That life shall be to live in death eternally.

Q.    What admonition do we have here?
A.    We should wait continually for the coming of the Lord.

Q.    What other admonitions do we have here?
A.    We should thirst continually for eternal life.

Q.    Is it enough to know these things to be true?
A.    No, but we must know and apply them to ourselves.

Q.    What are these Articles, which we have declared?
A.    The ground and foundation of our faith and religion.

Q.    How should we apply them to ourselves?
A.    By our own true and lively faith.

    Of True Faith With the Fruits

Q.    What is true faith?
A.    An Assured knowlege of God’s mercy towards us for Christ’s sake, according to His promises.

Q.    Do we have any natural inclinations to this faith?
A.    None at all.  Instead, we have a natural rebellion.

Q.    Who then works these things in us?
A.    God’s Holy Spirit does seal them up in our hearts.

Q.    How can guilty men be assured of God’s mercy?
A.    By the truth of His promise made to the repentant.

Q.    Yet our guiltiness cannot but fear God’s Justice?
A.    Therefore we Interpone the satisfaction of Christ.

    The First Fruit of Faith

Q.    What is the first fruits of our faith?
A.    By it we are made one with Christ our head.

Q.    How is this union made and when?
A.    When we are made flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones.

Q.    Was not this done, when He took our flesh?
A.    No, for only then was He made flesh of our flesh.

Q.    When are we made flesh of His flesh?
A.    When we are united with him spiritually as lively members with the Head.



 An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 6.1  

A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 6.1

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the first part of chapter 6 on the Holy Spirit and the Church.

6.
The Third Part of God’s Honour is Prayer,
Which is Declared in General With an Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer

Q.    Who is the Holy Spirit?
A.    He is fully God equal with the Father and the Son.

Q.    From where does He proceed?
A.    From the Father and the Son.

Q.    What is His general office?
A.    He puts all things in execution which are decreed by God’s secret council.

Q.    What thing does He in the order of nature?
A.    He keeps all things in their natural estate.

Q.    Where, then, do all of these alterations come from?
A.    From the same Spirit working diversely in nature.

Q.    Then the Spirit is but nature?
A.    No, for He is God ruling and keeping nature.

Q.    What does He do in worldly kingdoms?
A.    He raises and casts them down at His pleasure.

Q.    Why are these things attributed to him?
A.    Because He is the power & had of God.

Q.    What does He do in the Kingdom of Christ?
A.    He gathers all of God’s elect to Christ.

Q.    Why is He called holy?
A.    Because He is the fountain of holiness and makes us holy.

Q.    When and how does He do this?
A.    By His mighty power He separates us from our natural corruption an ddedicates us to godliness.

Q.    What thing is this natural corruption?
A.    Blindness of mind, hardness of heart, and contempt of God.

Q.    How does He dedicate us to godliness?
A.    He lightens our minds, molests our hearts, and strengthens us.

Q.    What, then, is all flesh without the Spirit?
A.    Blind and dead in all heavenly things.

Q.    What other names does He have in Scripture?
A.    He is called the Spirit of faith, regernation, strength, and comfort.

Q.    Why are these names given to the Spirit?
A.    Because He works all these things in us.

Q.    What are these graces called?
A.    Sanctification, regeneration, or new birth & spirit.

Q.    What is our corrupted estate called?
A.    The old man, the old Adam, and flesh and blood.

Q.    What follows upon our sanctification?
A.    A continual battle between the Spirit and the flesh.

Q.    Who strengthens and keeps us in this battle?
A.    The same Spirit who also gives us [not in original] final victory.

Q.    What is this battle to us?
A.    A sure seal of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Q.    What does the old man battle in himself?
A.    None at all against sin and wickedness.

Q.    In whom then is this battle?
A.    Only in the members of Christ and His Church through the presence of the Spirit.


Q.    What is the Church in which we confess here?
A.    The whole company of God’s elect, called and sanctified.

Q.    Do we believe in this Church?
A.    No, but we believe only in our God.

Q.    What do we believe about this Church?
A.    That it was, is, and shall be to the end of the world.

Q.    What do we need to believe this?
A.    For our great comfort and glory of God.

Q.    Declare that plainely.
A.    The love of the Father, the death of Christ, and the power of the Spirit shall ever work in some.

Q.    What follows this belief?
A.    The glory of God and confusion of Satan with our comfort.

Q.    Why is this Church only known to us by faith?
A.    Because it contains only God’s elect which are only known to God Himself.

Q.    When and how may we know them?
A.    When we see the fruits of election and holiness in them.

Q.    In what respect is the Church called holy?
A.    In respect of our justification and sanctification.

Q.    How do these two graces differ?
A.    The first grace (justification) is perfect, the second grace (sanctification) is imperfect.

Q.    What is the cause of that diversity?
A.    The first grace is in Christ and the second grace is in us.

Q.    Are not both of these gifts ours?
A.    No doubt, seeing Christ is ours.

Q.    Can we not come to a full perfection in this life?
A.    No, for the flesh continues to rebel against the Spirit.

Q.    Why does the Spirit not sanctify us perfectly?
A.    Lest we should milknowe our former captivity and redemption.

Q.    What admonition do we have of our estate?
A.    We should be humble, repentant, and thankful to our God.

Q.    Why is the Church called universal?
A.    Because it is spread through the whole world.

Q.    How many churches are there in the world?
A.    One Church and one Christ who is the head over one body.

Q.    Is it bound to any particular time, place, or persons?
A.    No, for then it would not be universal.

Q.    What is the communion of the saints?
A.    The mutual participation of Christ and His graces among His members.

Q.    What follows upon this communion?
A.    A spiritual union and communion among all of Christ’s members.

Q.    Where is this communion grounded?
A.    Upon their union with Christ who is their head.

Q.    Who makes our union with Christ and among ourselves?
A.    The Holy Spirit by His mighty power.

Q.    Is there any salvation without this communion?
A.    None at all, for Christ is the ground of salvation.

Q.    Can men be joyed with Christ and not with His saints?
A.    No, nor can one be joyed with the saints and not with Christ.

Q.    Q.    What then should be our principal care?
A.    To hold fast our union with Christ our head.

Q.    What follows upon that.
A.    Then of necessity we are joined with all His saints and churches.

Q.    Should we not seek them and join with them eternally also?
A.    No doubt, whensoever we may be see them, or here of them in particuler.

    How the Church Can Be Known

Q.    How can we know this company for eternally?
A.    By the true profession of the Word and the holy Sacraments.

Q.    What if these tokens are not found among them?
A.    Then they are not of the communion of saints.

Q.    Can we with a clear conscience join ourselves with such?
A.    No, for they are not the holy Church of God where these tokens are not.

Q.    Then we depart from the universal Church?
A.    No, but we depart from the corruption of men and remain in the holy and universal Church.

Q.    But yet they will call themselves the Church?
A.    We should look to the true marks of the Church.

Q.    Can we leave a particular church where the word is not retained?
A.    No, albeit fundry other vices abound there.

Q.    But the multitude are wicked and profane.
A.    Yet there is a true Church where the word truly remains.

Q.    What then is the infallible token of Christ’s Church?
A.    The Word of god truly preached and professed.

Q.    Should we discuss who are saints in deed and who are not?
A.    No, for that only appertains to God and to themselves.

Q.    But by this can we be joined with the wicked in one body.
A.    That cannot hurt us nor profit them.

Q.    How is that?
A.    Because we and they are spiritually separated.

Q.    But they make the Word and the sacraments unfruitful.
A.    Not to us but to themselves only.

    Of the Gifts

Q.    Why is the remissions of sins put here?
A.    Because it is proper to the Church and members of the same.

Q.    Why is it proper to the Church only?
A.    Because only in the Church is the spirit of faith and repentance present [not original].

Q.    Who forgives sins and where?
A.    Only God through Christ is His Church here.

Q.    How often are our sins forgiven?
A.    Continually even to the end of our lives.

Q.    What need is there of this?
A.    Because sin is never throughly abolished here.

Q.    How do we get remission of our sins?
A.    Through the mercy of God and the merits of Christ.

Q.    Is there any remission of sins after this life?
A.    None at all, though some have taught otherwise.

Q.    Are both sin and the pain forgiven?
A.    No doubt, seeing that one follows upon the other.

Q.    However, oftentimes the pain remains after the sin.
A.    That pain is not a satisfaction for sin.

Q.    What is it then, seeing it comes for sin?
A.    It is a Fatherly correction and medicine preservation [Medcine preferuatiue].


An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.1  
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.2  

A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.2

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the second part of chapter 5 on the cross, resurrection, and atonement.

5.

The Second part of God’s Honor is Obedience and 

Here the Law is Declared and How it Does Differ from the Gospel

Here is Chapter 5.1-7


The Form of Judgment

Q.    Why did He suffer under this form of judgment?
A.    To assure us the better in order to free us from God’s judgement.

Q.    But the judge Pilate did pronounce Him innocent did he not?
A.    That made greatly for our comfort.

Q.    What comfort do we gain by this?
A.    That He died not for His own sins but for ours.

Q.    But Pilate meant no such thing?       
A.    We look not at what he meant, but what God meants by His wicked judgment.

    The Cross

Q.    Why did He suffer on the cross?
A.    In order to assures us that He took our cuse upon Himself.

Q.    What assurance do we have of this?
A.    That this kind of death was accursed of God.

Q.    Was he also cursed of God?
A.    No, but he sustained our curse.

Q.    Was He guilty before God?
A.    No, but He sustained the person of guilty of men.

Q.    What comfort do we have of this?
A.    He removed our curse and gave us His blessing.

Q.    In what part did He suffer?
A.    Both in boy and in soul.

Q.    Why is that?
A.    Because we were lost both in body in soul.

Q.    What did He suffer in His soul?
A.    The fearful wrath and angry face of God.

Q.    What pain was that?
A.    The grief of death and pain of hell.
Q.    How do know we that?
A.    By His praying, sweating, and strong crying with tears.

Q.    How did He sustain these pains?
A.    Through faith, patience, and prayer to His Father.

Q.    How do the damn sustain these pains in hell?
A.    With despair and continual blasphemy.

    The Pain of Hell

Q.    When did Christ descend to hell?
A.    When He sustained these fearful pains upon the cross.

Q.    Why did God punish one innocent man so grievously?
A.    Because He took upon Himself the burden of our sins.

Q.    Was God content with His satisfaction?
A.    No doubt for He of His mercy did appoint it.

Q.    Was His death also needful for our redemption?
A.    Otherwise the decrees and the figures had not been fulfilled.

    His Death, Burial, and Fruits

Q.    If He died for us then why do we still die?
A.    Our death is not now a punishment for our sins.

Q.    What other thing can it be?
A.    It is made (through His death), a ready passage to a better life.

Q.    What should we learn by all of these fearful pains?
A.    The terrible wrath of God for sin and how dear we are bought.

Q.    What comfort do we have by these sufferings of Christ?
A.    The faithful members of Christ shall never suffer them.

Q.    But we were oppressed with the cursed of the Law were we not?
A.    Christ took it upon Himself and gave us the blessing.

Q.    What special profit do we get by His death?
A.    It is a sufficient and everlasting sacrifice for our sins.

Q.    What does this sacrifice work perpectually?
A.    It removes all evil things and restores all good things

Q.    Is there any priest and sacrifice for sin now?
A.    None at all for Christ has satisfied once for all.

Q.    But yet in our nature there are many spots?
A.    Christ’s blood therefore perpetually washes them away.

Q.    The memories and tokens of our sins may assray us?
A.    All things were deleted in the cross of Christ.

Q.    But yet we find sin working in us.
A.    The death of Christ, however, does kill the tyranny of it.

Q.    It will always remains in us to the end.
A.    Through faith, however, it is not imputed to the members of Christ.

Q.    Why was He buried?
A.    To assure us the better of His death.
Q.    What does His burial work in us?
A.    A continual mortification of sin.   

    His Resurrection and Fruits

Q.    Why did he rise before us?
A.    To assure us of His victory over death for us.

Q.    What fruit do we get by His victory?
A.    We are brought in a sure hope of eternal life.

Q.    What other fruit do we get by it?
A.    It works newness of life in us here.

Q.    What other thing shall it do to us?
A.    It shall raise up our bodies again in the latter day.

    His Ascension

Q.    Why did He ascend into heaven before us?
A.    In order to take possession of our inheritance in our name.

Q.    But he said, “I shall be with you even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)
A.    He spoke that of His spiritual presence.

Q.    What does He there now for us?
A.    He makes continual intercession for us.

Q.    What kind of intercession is this?
A.    It is the continual mitigation of his Father’s wrath for us through the virtue of His death.

Q.    Is He our only intercessor and Mediator?
A.    No doubt seeing that He only died for us.

Q.    What does it mean that He is sitting at the right hand of God the Father?
A.    The power He has in heaven and on earth.

Q.    What comfort do we have by His power and authority?
A.    We are sure under His protection.

    His Coming Again

Q.    For what reason will He come again?
A.    To put a final end to our redemption.

Q.    What shall be that final end?
A.    Eternal joy or misery in every man.

Q.    Is not that done in every man’s death?
A.    No, for the bodies remain yet unrewarded.

Q.    Shall there not be a middle estate of men?
A.    No, but all shall be brought to these two ends.

Q.    Why is that seeing some are better and some are worse:
A.    All shall be judged evil who are not members of Christ.

Q.    But how can the quick be judged before they die?
A.    Their sudden change shall be in steid of death to them.

Q.    But all flesh should go to the dust again.
A.    It is done so ordinarily, but here is a special cause.

Q.    What comfort do we have of the person of the Judge?
A.    Our Savior, Advocate, and Mediator shall only be our Judge.

Q.    What should the Infidels confider here?
A.    Christ, whom they now contemn, shall be their Judge.

Q.    What should the meditation of this article work in us?
A.    The contempt of all worldly pleasures and a delight in heavenly things.

Q.    Who shall be sure in that day?
A.    All that are made here the members of Christ.

Q.    Who makes us members of Christ?
A.    Only God’s Holy Spirit who is working in our hearts.


An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.1  

A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 5.1

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the first part of chapter 5 regarding Christology.

5.The Second part of God’s Honor is Obedience and 

Here the Law is Declared and How it Does Differ from the Gospel

Q.    What things do we learn in the second part?
A.    The truth and justice of God in our redemption.

Q.    Who is our redeemer and how did He redeem us?
A.    Jesus Christ, who has redeemed us by his death.

Q.    What kind of person is He?
A.    Perfect God and perfect Man.

Q.    Why was he both God and Man?
A.    So that he might be a meete Mediator for us.

Of His Name and Titles

Q.    Why was this name Jesus, or Savior given only by God?
A.    To assure us the better of our salvation by him.

Q.    Is there any virtue in this name?
A.    No, but the virtue is in the person.

Q.    Why was He called “Christ” or “Anointed?
A.    Because He was anointed King, Priest, and Prophet for us.

Q.    To what purpose do these titles serve?
A.    They express his office and how he saved us.

Q.    Declare that more plainly.
A.    He saved us by His kingdom, His Priesthood, and Prophecy.

Q.    How can this be proven?
A.    By the anointing of Kings, Priests, and Prophets which were figures of His anointing.

Q.    Was Christ anointed with material oil?
A.    No, but he was anointed with the gifts of the Spirit without measure.

    Of His Kingdom, Priesthood and Prophecy
                   
Q.    What kind of kingdom does He have?
A.    It is spiritual, pertaining chiefly to our souls.

Q.    Wherein does his kingdom consist?
A.    In God’s word and His Holy Spirit.

Q.    What do we get through the Word and Spirit?
A.    Righteousness and everlasting life.

Q.    What thing is his Priesthood?
A.    An office appointed for the satisfaction of God’s wrath.

Q.    How did He satisfy God’s wrath for us?
A.    By His obedience, prayer, and everlasting sacrifice.

Q.    Why is He called our only Prophet?
A.    He ever was, is, and shall be the only teacher of the Church.

Q.    What then were the Prophets and Apostles?
A.    All these were his disciples and servants.

Q.    Why were all of these honorable offices given to him?
A.    That thereby He might deliver us from sin.

Q.    Declare that particularly in these three offices.

    The Fruits of These Three Offices

A.    By his kingly power we are free from sin, death, and hell.

Q.    But we may easily fall again in sin.
A.    Yet by the same power we shall rise, and get the victory.

Q.    The battle is very hard
A.    We fight not in our own strength.

Q.    What then is our armor and strength?
A.    The power and Spirit of Christ in us.

Q.    What profit comes to us through his Priesthood?
A.    He has become our Mediator and we have become priests also.

Q.    How have we become priests?
A.    By him we have freedom to enter in before God and offer up ourselves and all that we have.

Q.    What kind of sacrifice is this?
A.    A sacrifice of thanksgiving only.

Q.    May we not offer Christ again for our sins?
A.    No, for Christ cannot die again.

Q.    What profit do we have of this prophecy?
A.    We now know most plainly His Father’s will.

Q.    How else does this profit us?
A.    All revelations and prophecies are finished.

Q.    But some things are not yet fulfilled.
A.    We speak of thing pertaining to His first coming.

    Son and Lord

Q.    Why is Jesus Christ called God’s only Son?
A.    Because He is His only Son by nature.

Q.    Yet He is called the first begotten among many brethren.
A.    That is in respect of his communicating with us.

Q.    Why is he called our Lord?
A.    Because as Lord He rule over us and is the head of men and angels.

Of His Conception and Birth

Q.    Why was He conceived by the Holy Spirit?
A.    So that He might be without sin and sanctify us.

Q.    What if He had been a sinner?
A.    He could not have delivered us from our sins.

Q.    Was He only made free from sin?
A.    No, but he was also replenished with the Spirit without measure.

Q.    Why was the fullness of the Spirit given to Him?
A.    So that He might bestow on us the same fullness of the Spirit.

Q.    Why was He made a man like us?
A.    So that He might be for us in our own nature.

Q.    What followed upon His incarnation?
A.    That life and righteousness is placed in our flesh.

Q.    Can this new life be lost as it was in Adam?
A.    No, for our flesh is joined personally with the fountain of life.

Q.    Then all men are sure of this life?
A.    No, but only those who are joined with him spiritually.

Q.    What avails then our carnal union with Christ?
A.    Nothing without our spiritual union with him.

    Of His Mother’s Virginity and Name

Q.    What serves his mother’s virginity?
A.    It is a seal of His miraculous conception.

Q.    Was He holy through her virginity?
A.    No, seeing our whole nature is corrupted.

Q.    Why is this named in our belief?
A.    So that we may know His tribe and family.

Q.    How does that help our faith?
A.    We are assured that He is the Savior as promised.

Q.    Of what tribe and house was He promised?
A.    Of the tribe of Judah and the house of David.

Q.    How did He redeem us?
A.    He suffered death for us willingly according to God’s decree.


An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.3

A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.3

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the first part of chapter 4 regarding God's Providence.

4.  The First Part of God’s Honor is Faith and it is here that Belief and Faith Are Declared.

Read 4.1 here. 
Read 4.2 here - The First Part of Our Belief


    Of Godis Providence

Q.    Who rules & keeps all things made?
A.    The fame eternal God, that made them.

Q.    Who makes all these fearful alterations in nature?
A.    The hand of God who makes them either for our comfort or for our punishment.

Q.    Who rules Satan and all of his instruments?
A.    Our God by his almighty power & providence.

Q.    What comfort does this give us?
A.    No thing can hurt us, without our Father’s good will.

Q.    What if Satan did have freedom over us?
A.    We would be in the most miserable of states.

Q.    How should this Fatherly care work in us?
A.    Thanks for all things that come to us.

Q.    What other this should it work?
A.    Boldness in our fight against all impediments.

Q.    Who rules sin, which is not of God?
A.    He only rules all and actions and defections that come to past in heaven and Earth.

Q.    Why should we believe that?
A.    Because He is God almighty above His creatures.

Q.    But sin is not a Creature?
A.    Yet, if he did not rule it, He would not be the almighty.

Q.    Does God partake in sin as He rules over it?
A.    No, for He works his own good work by it.

Q.    Are the wicked excused through His good work?
A.    No, for they work their own evil work.

Q.    Why not, seeing God’s will concurs with them?
A.    They mean one thing and God means another.

Q.    What do they mean in their actions and sin?
A.    Contempt of God and hurt of His creatures.

Q.    What means God, using them and their sin?
A.    The trial of his own or punishment of sin.

Q.    What should we learn by this discourse?
A.    To fear only the LORD our GOD.

Q.    What shall we judge of them that conspire with Satan?
A.    They deny this first article of our belief.

Q.    May we not conjure Satan to reveal secrets?
A.    No, for he is the author of lies.

Q.    But he oftentimes speaks the truth.
A.    That is to get the greater credit in his lies.

Q.    May we not remove witchcraft with witchcraft?
A.    No, for that is to help from Satan.


An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2

A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.2

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the first part of chapter 4 regarding God as our Creator.

4.  The First Part of God’s Honor is Faith and it is here that Belief and Faith Are Declared.

Read 4.1 here.


The First Part of Our Belief.

Q.    Why does it specifically say, “I believe?”
A.    Everyone should live by his own faith.

Q.    Should everyone know what he believes?
A    Yes, otherwise he does not have true faith.

Q.    Are we bound to confess our faith openly?
A.      No doubt, when time and place does require it.

Q.    Is it enough to believe that there is a God?
A.    No, but we must also know who this true God is.

Q.     Is it enough, then, to know who this true God is?
A.    No, but we must also know what He will be to us.

Q.     How can we know that?
A.    By His promises and works He has done for our comfort.

Q.    What does He promise us?
A.    To be our loving Father and Savior.

Q.    What makes us crave this promise?
A.     A full trust and confidence in Him.

Q.    What moves us, then, to believe in God?
A.    Sense and feeling of His Fatherly love.

Q.    Why do we call Him Father?
A.    In respect of Christ and of ourselves.

Q.    Declare how that is more plainly.
A.    He is Christ’s Father by nature and ours by grace through him.

Q.    Why then are we called the sons of wrath?
A.    In respect of our natural estate by sin.

Q.    When do we have the assurance of sonship?
A.    When we believe in his Fatherly love.

Q.    Why do we make mention of his power here?
A.    To assure us that he may love us.

Q.     Of what power do we mean here?
A.    Of that power which possesses all things.

Q.    What should this work in us?
A.    Humility, confidence, and boldness.

Q.    Why do we begin at his fatherly love and power?
A.    Because they are the chief grounds of our faith.

Q.    Declare that more plainly.
A.    By these two we are persuaded of all the rest of his promises.

Q.    What is meant here by Heaven and Earth?
A.    Every creature in Heaven and Earth. 

Q.    How did he make every creature?
A.      He made them all out of nothing by his word.

Q.    Why did he do that?
A.    To show his infinite power.

Q.    Why, then, did he take six days to create?
A.    That we might better consider Him in His works.

Q.    Why are they put in our belief?
A.    To bear witness to us of their Creator.

Q.    In what ways do they testify of him?
A.    That He is infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness.

Q.     What other special things do they teach us?
A.    His Fatherly care and providence for us.


An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1

A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 4.1

We continue our series on John Craig's Large Catechism titled A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism.  What is offered here is an up to date translation for modern readers.  This confession of faith was originally published in 1580 and was eventually replaced by the Westminister Catechism.  What follows is the first part of chapter 4 regarding the Apostles Creed.

4.  The First Part of God’s Honor is Faith and it is here that Belief and Faith Are Declared.

Q.      Why is faith put in the first place?
A.      Because it is the Mother to all the rest.

Q.      What does faith work in us?
A.      It moves us to put our whole confidence in God.

Q.      How may we be moved to do this?
A.      By the knowledge of his power and goodness.

Q.      But we are unworthy and guilty.
A.      Therefore we apprehend his promise in Christ.

Q.      Which are the principal heads of his promise?
A.      They are contained in our belief, called the Apostles Creed.

Q.      Rehearse Apostles Creed.
A.    I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. 
   
    And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, and descended into Hell. He rose again the third day from death. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead.
   
    I believe in the Holy Spirit: the Holy Universal Church, the communion of Saints: the forgiveness of sins: the rising again of the bodies and life everlasting.

Q.      Why is this called the Creed of the Apostles?
A.    Because it agrees with their doctrine and time.

Q.    In how many parts is it divided?
A.    In four principal parts.

Q.    What are we taught in the first part?
A.    The right knowledge of God the Father.

Q.    What are we taught in the second part?
A.    The right knowledge of God the Son.
Q.    What are we taught in the third part?
A.    The right knowledge of God the Holy Spirit.

Q.    What are we taught in the fourth part?
A.    The right knowledge of the Church, and the gifts given to it.

Q.    How many gods are there?
A.    Only one Eternal God, maker of all things.

Q.     Why, then, do we speak of three gods here?
A.    Because there are three distinct persons in the Godhead.

Q.    Wherefore is the Father put in the first place?
A.    Because he is the fountain of all things.

Q.    Why is the Son put in the second place?
A.    He is the Eternal wisdom of the Father, begotten before all beginnings.

Q.    Why is the Spirit put in the third place?
A.    He is his power, proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Q.    Why is the Church put in the fourth place?
A.    It is the good work of these three persons.


An Introduction of the Life and Works of Scottish Reformation John Craig - Part 1 
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Introduction
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 1
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter 2
A Short Summary of the Whole Catechism - Chapter  3 


For more:

Jesus, Paul, and the Gospel: Wax Interviews McKnight

Author and blogger Trevin Wax has published a recent interview he had with theologian Scot McKnight regarding the gospel according to Jesus and the gospel according to the Apostle Paul.  It is a fascinating read and this is a growing issue within Evangelicalism.  I firmly believe that the gospel of the Kingdom is the same gospel of justification preached by Paul.  Though at times the two seemed to have used different language, they were speaking about the same thing.

Here's a portion of the interview:


Trevin Wax: Scot, in your article, you write: “It is not exaggerating to say that evangelicalism is facing a crisis about the relationship of Jesus to Paul, and that many today are choosing sides.” Why do you think evangelicals feel the need to choose sides in this discussion?

Scot McKnight: You ask a genuinely interesting question and I wish I could give an answer to the “why?” question.

Instead, I see an issue here of hermeneutical inevitability. We are driven by the way we think to synthesize (or systematize) or to harmonize or to compartmentalize. These sorts of actions are inherent to how our brains work, especially for people who read the Bible as believers and who believe it is God’s Word and genuinely makes utter sense.

What I find is that many evangelicals came to faith through a Pauline-anchored set of categories. In many ways it was about the gospel of the Romans Road, and if that understanding of the gospel is repeated often enough (and just listen and you will hear it all the time) it becomes reflexive. This is the context of most evangelicals, and that context is fundamentally hermeneutical.

An analogy: the Judaizing opponents of Paul in Galatians knew how to read the Bible through a Moses lens, and Paul was teaching them to read the Bible (or Israel’s Story) through an Abraham lens. The Judaizing opponents couldn’t make sense of what Paul was saying, and that led them to say “Why then did God even give the Law?”

I see the same thing going on today. Evangelicals have grown up with a gospel, and that gospel has become their hermeneutic, and that hermeneutic is essentially derived from a specific way of reading Paul, and by that I mean a soteriological reading of Romans 1-8. It is the way we (or most of us) think.

The minute a kingdom hermeneutic comes up, one either abandons the Pauline hermeneutic or one synthesizes or — and I think this is most common — one colonizes Jesus’ kingdom hermeneutic by a justification hermeneutic. That is, we make Jesus talk Paul. Or, we colonize Paul with Jesus’ kingdom hermeneutic and make Paul talk Jesus.

Evangelicals are worried that if we colonize Paul with Jesus’ kingdom hermeneutic we will lose a Pauline soteriology. There are plenty of cases where that very thing happened. But I think many are doing the very same thing by colonizing Jesus with Paul.

What I suggest in my article is that both of these approaches fails to find the essential continuity between Jesus and Paul. Kingdom doesn’t lead to justification and justification doesn’t lead to kingdom. The unity is found through christology, not through kingdom or justification.

Trevin Wax: You mention that we are driven by the way we think to systematize what we find in the Bible. Some downplay the benefit of this kind of systematization of theology. But any time we try to hold the Bible, we are engaging in a systematic framework – at least at some level. Of course, there are problems in doing systematic theology, as well as benefits too. What do you think? Is it a good impulse to want to connect the dots and put the Bible together?

Scot McKnight: Putting the Bible together and doing systematics are two different things for me. Systematic theology has many definitions, and the only one that concerns me is when folks let their system overwhelm what the texts actually say. The further we let our categories stray from the fundamental story line one finds in the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed or Regula Fidei, that is the fundamental story line of the Bible (creation, covenant, community, Christ, church, consummation), the further we are getting from having a true biblical unity.

I think the systematized versions of Calvinism and Arminianism stray too far from this narrative line in their essential set of categories. I’m nervous about teaching theology through the classical topoi, and prefer that we teach it through the lens of the Bible’s fundamental narrative.

Kingdom People (Trevin Wax) - Jesus vs. Paul: An Interview with Scot McKnight about the Gospel
Christianity Today (Scot McKnight) - Jesus vs. Paul  


For more:
Theology - McLaren and McKnight:  Conversations on Being a Heretic 
Theology - The Evolving God: McKnight's Critique of McLaren 
Reviews - "The Blue Parakeet" by Scot McKnight 

The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - the Complete Series

Last week I posted a 5 part series on the Emergent doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture and their rejection of it.  This is a fascinating and very important conversation (use an Emergent word) that we need to have.  Is Scripture clear?  If not, then we become the source of revelation, not the Bible.  Furthermore, the rejection of Scripture's clarity means that the gospel itself remains unclear.

Here are the links to all of the articles:

The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2 
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3 
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4 
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 5


For more: 
Theology -  Thesis: Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Social Gospel
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 3
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 4
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 5
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 6 

Wallis and the New Christian Right: Newsweek Jounalistic Malpractice

Dr. Denny Burk, Dean of Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written pointed out Newsweeks recent article on the new faces of the Christian right.  Perhaps most shocking and absolutely ridiculous is Sojourners Jim Wallis who is a regular "guest" on Glenn Beck's blackboard and is on record supporting the distribution of wealth (hence the "love" affair with Beck), pro-choice politics (under the guise of abortion reduction), his ongoing and unyielding support for Democrats and especially President Barack Obama, passivism, and his support for the morality of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  How can anyone seriously consider this guy part of the Christian right?

Here is what Burk had to say:

Tony Perkins? Check. Robbie George? Check. Jim Daly? Check. Jim Wallis? [Cue sound of needle scraping across record here.] Not so much. This has to be one of the most horrid pieces of religion reporting that I have ever seen.

What I find even more ridiculous is what Newsweek had to say about Wallis:

If such a thing as the evangelical left exists, Jim Wallis is flying its flag. The evangelical minister, who heads the Christian social justice group Sojourners, argues in his magazine, books, and speeches for liberal policies on matters like social justice, the war in Afghanistan, nuclear-arms reductions, and immigration. That’s made him popular with some religious Democrats. But scholars of the evangelical and conservative Christian movements question the depth of Wallis’s support, claiming that his true success lies in publicity-seeking, not proselytizing, and that he’s essentially a media creation. (The same goes for other liberal and moderate evangelicals like Brian McLaren, a pastor who supports tolerance—if not outright acceptance—of gays, and Richard Cizik, a moderate and former lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals who was drummed out of his job after backing gay marriage.) The reality is somewhere in between, argues John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron. “From my perspective, ‘liberal’ evangelicals really do exist, especially among younger and well-educated evangelicals,” he says. “However, they make up only a small portion of the evangelical community as a whole.”

So how does he fit on the right again?  And people wonder why Newsweek is going bankrupt and quickly losing readership.


Newsweek - Faces of the Christian Right 
Denny Burk - Faces of the Christian Right? 


For more:
Blogizomai - Abortion Reduction:  The Danger of Compromising on Life  
Blogizomai - Abortion: Is Common Ground Possible?
Theology - Wallis and Soros: Are the Two Connected? - The Answer is Yes 
Theology - Wallis and Soros:  Are the Two Connected? 
Theology - Repent For Health Care is At Hand:  Did Obama Just Legislate the Gospel? 
Theology - Is Wallis a Marxist?  A New Video Surfaces
Review -"The Great Awakening" Part 1 by Jim Wallis
Review -"The Great Awakening" Part 2 by Jim Wallis
Theology - Jim Wallis and Open Theism  
Theology - Don't Be Fooled:  The Conversation Isn't Open to Everyone  
Commentary - Have We Forgotten the Gospel?  Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Gospel
Commentary - Who Isn't One?:  Brian McLaren and Social Christians
Shortblog - Glenn Beck and Social Justice
Shortblog - The Power of the Gospel in Bringing Social Change:  Perhaps We Need to Reconsider Our Efforts
Review -"A Theology For The Social Gospel" - Sin by Walter Rauschenbusch
Review -"A Theology For The Social Gospel" - The Atonement by Walter Rauschenbusch
Review -"A Theology For the Social Gospel" - Part 1 by Walter Rauschenbusch
Review -"When Helping Hurts"
Review -"The Justice Project" by Brian McLaren
Review -"Everything Must Change" by Brian McLaren 
Blogizomai - The Follow of Abortion Reduction: A Lesson in Common Sense
Blogizomai - Social Conservatives Take Heed: 100 Days of Change
Blogizomai - The Slavery of the Unborn: Why Abortion Reduction is Not Pro-Life
Blogizomai - From Life to Choice to Economics: A New President and a Change in the Debate Over Life
Blogizomai - A Day of "See I Told You So's"
Blogizomai - Colson: The March of Death
Blogizomai - "No We Won't": Obama and the Lie of Abortion Reduction

The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 5

Conclusion

In the end, Emergents make a number of fundamental mistakes regarding the perspicuity of Scripture.  First, Emergents are certain that Scripture is uncertain.  That is paradoxical at best.  How can one deny certainty with certainty?
   
Secondly, Emergents are selective in their denial of Scripture’s perspicuity.  They are willing to consider difficult doctrines like the virgin birth and the resurrection as obscure and open to debate, but are unwilling to consider more favorable doctrines such as God’s love and Christ’s command to love their neighbor as themselves as obscure or debatable.  It seems, then, that Emergents do not deny Scripture’s certainty, rather, they adopt a selective reading, and obedience that fits well with cultural trends.
   
Thirdly, Emergents believe that they are breaking new ground and setting new paradigms bringing Christians closer together instead of farther apart, but in reality, they are only reciting the same theology of the past that has been rejected.  Emergents sound more like Erasmus and the Council of Trent than they would like to admit.  MacArthur is right when he suggests that reading Emergents, at least in this aspect, is like returning to Rome prior to the Reformation.  Like the Catholic Church of the 15th and 16th Centuries, Emergents believe that the Bible is too difficult to understand and is clouded in ambiguity and mystery.  Where the two differ, however, is that the Catholic Church affirmed the Pope’s God-given authority and insight in interpretation, but in their rejection of authority and hierarchy, Emergents declare everyone too ignorant, blind, and culturally weighed down to properly interpret the texts of Scripture.
   
So though trying to push the Church forward, they are in fact pushing Her backwards.  To read the Emergents is to read the Catholic dissenters responding to the Reformed doctrine of perspicuity.  For example, consider leading Catholic theologian Dr. Johann Maier von Eck (who famously debated Martin Luther at Leipzig) who pointed out the already present divisions within the young Reformation movement.  Eck argues that the belief in perspicuity would lead to countless divisions.  He wrote:
   
By this example, taken from the modern heretics (who reject any other judge than Scripture) is shown how the Lutherans and Oecolampadians and Zwinglians fight over the sacrament of the Eucharist . . . Who among them will be judge?  Who will ever bring them into harmony?  Scripture or the Church?  (Apart from these no other judge can be provided).  It is not indeed upon Scripture, which each contends to be the judge, that they lay their foundation – all the while in their self-same words of Scripture – and thus they do not admit Scripture as judge against their own doctrine but they make themselves judges over Scripture.  Accordingly, the Church will necessarily judge. [1]

This is exactly the same argument Emergents are making today.  Emergents are trying to transcend division, religions, and denominations.  This explains their love affair with the word “post.”  Brian McLaren has written, “Already, many people are using terms like post-Protestant, post-denominational, post-liberal, and post-conservative to express a desire to move beyond the polarization and sectarianism that have too often characterized Christians of the past.” [2] Similarly, McLaren asserts, “Ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope’s, whoever’s) is orthodox, meaning true, and here’s my honest answer: a little, but not yet . . . To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall . . . But we keep seeking.” [3]  To seek is to invite, to affirm and promote is too divde.  Certainty, then, divides while obscurity and mystery invite.  Thus McLaren and the rest of the Emergent Church invite through obscurity and mystery.
   
Absolute truths, statements, doctrines, and dogmas promote division and arrogance and so  Emergents reject perspicuity out of fear of being divided from others.  Thus they reject what they call Foundationalism [4] and embrace mystery and ambiguity.  Rob Bell calls this “brickianity” [5]  Bricks keep people out.  Brickians (my word) “spend a lot of time talking about how right” they are.  “Which of course leads to how wrong everybody else is.  Brick walls keep people out, a faith like a trampoline invites “people to jump on it with you.”  Bell is “far more interested in jumping than . . . in arguing about whose trampoline is better.”  Bell’s point is that since God cannot be completely known, it is dangerous to assume that “my beliefs” are right and “your beliefs” are wrong. [6]
   
In this same vein, Rollins writes:
   
The emerging church is thus able to leave aside the need for clarity and open up the way for us to accept the fact that what is important is that we are embraced by the beloved rather than finding agreement concerning how we ought to understand this beloved (as if a baby can only really love her mother if she understands her). [7]

This is straight out of the box from the Catholic Church during the Reformation.  Emergents today and Catholics in the past affirmed the ambiguity of Scripture, the unknowingness of God, and the danger of divisiveness in the Church.  The only difference, however, is the Catholic Church has given the Pope the role of the one true interpreter while Emergents reject anyone can truly know what Scripture says or means. [8]
   
In the end, what is at stake is more than just the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture, but the gospel.  To have a weak Bibliology is to have a wrong Soteriology.  This is not about hermeneutics, but about the gospel.  One’s view of Scripture is a gospel issue.  So though there is great reason to be concerned regarding the clear rejection of Scripture’s perspicuity, it is imperative that the reader be reminded that this is not a mere debate about semantics and dogma, but about the gospel itself.  If Scripture is unclear then the gospel itself remains a mystery. [9]  And if the gospel is a mystery, then God help us all!


[1]  As quoted in James Patrick Callahan, The Clarity of Scripture: History, Theology, and Contemporary Literary Studies (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 2001), 134.
[2]  Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 74.
[3]  Ibid., 333.
[4]  One Emergent book describes Foundationalism as, “In a foundationalist world, people assumed that through careful reason, logic, and research a complete structure of knowledge could be erected and mysteries could gradually be replaced with knowledge.  This knowledge would accumulate like bricks cemented on a foundation, and assuming the foundation is secure and certain, humans could have rock-solid certainty from the bottom up.  Modern secularists tended to rely only on sensory data for their “bricks,” while modern Christians mined their bricks from the Bible, which was assumed to be intended by God as a source from which propositions could be extracted.  In either case, it was assumed that knowledge was like a wall or building engineered upon an undoubtable, unshakeable foundation.”  Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer, A is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 128-129.  McLaren describes Foundationalism as “the dominant metaphor of the Enlightenment project: Truth is a system of propositions, laid like bricks and cemented by logic, resting on the foundations of indubitable and self-evident truths.  And the word “resting” is significant as well: The goal of foundationalism is a kind of rest, where everything is settled, questions are answered, doubts are removed, knowledge is known.”  McLaren, More Ready Than You Realize, 129.
[5]  Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 28.
[6]  Ibid., 27.
[7]  Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God, 18.
[8]  In his debate against Luther, for example, Erasmus stated,“since Scripture is ultimately obscure concerning a great number of matters, especially the relationship of the divine and human will, it is necessary to plead ignorance as well as appeal to the judgment of the church (and its tradition in late medieval theology) to address the question of sovereignty and freedom.”  Taken from Callahan, The Clarity of Scripture, 135.  Here we see Erasmus affirming the ambiguity of Scripture and thus the obscurity of doctrine (in this case the issue of free will) just like Emergents do today.  However, note how Erasmus takes such ambiguity and places his trust in the gift of the Papacy who determines what is true and right doctrine.
[9]  McLaren has written, “Bona fide evangelicals are suggesting that the gospel is not atonement-centered, or, at least, not penal-substitutionary-atonement-centered . . . This suggestion represents a Copernican revolution for Western Christianity, in both its conservative Catholic and Protestant forms.  It may be judged erroneous – and likely will be judged so by many readers of this paper – but even those who dismiss it would be wise to consider the possibility that there is at least some small grain of truth to these ruminations on the nature and center of the gospel.  A lot is at stake either way . . . For reasons I have detailed elsewhere, I have put my eggs in the basket that suggests we need to rethink our understanding of the gospel – both for the sake of faithfulness to Holy Scripture, and for the sake of mission in the merging postmodern culture.”  Brian McLaren, “A Radical Rethinking of Our Evangelistic Strategy,” Theology, News, & Notes (Fall 2004), 6.

Tony Jones has also tweeted, “If you need a theory to worship Christ, worship your %&*$ing theory.”


The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2 
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3 
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4 



For more:
Theology -  Thesis: Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Social Gospel
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 3
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 4
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 5
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 6 

Beck on Bonhoeffer

Once again wildly popular Fox News host, Glenn Beck, is entering the world of theology this time regarding German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Already in the past year, Beck has dealt with issues of Mormonism (he himself is a Mormon), black liberation theology, progressive theology (namely Jim Wallis and others like him), social justice and its Christian bent (again, Jim Wallis), the Tower of Babel, and now one of the 20th Centuries most interesting theologians.  Bonhoeffer is perhaps best known for being executed by the Nazi's after being caught in a conspiracy to have Adolf Hitler assassinated.

Beck's concern primarily is in response to those (once again) like Jim Wallis who turn to Bonhoeffer as a social justice Christian.  Beck dedicated an entire show to the theologian and it is interesting to see a man very dedicated to politics and economics wade into the world of theology.  The author being interviewed does a good job presenting Bonhoeffer, but over all we are reminded of the limits of evaluating a man like Bonhoeffer through the lens of politics.











HT: The Right Scoop 


For more:
Theology -  Bad Hermeneutics?: Glenn Beck, Western Civilization, and the Tower of Babel 
Theology - Beck on Black Liberation Theology 
Blogizomai - Have We Forgotten the Gospel?  Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Gospel
Blogizomai - Who Isn't One?:  Brian McLaren and Social Christians
Shortblog - Glenn Beck and Social Justice
Shortblog - The Power of the Gospel in Bringing Social Change:  Perhaps We Need to Reconsider Our Efforts
Blogizomai - God and the Pledge:  A History and Its Affects  
Theology - Repent for Health Care is at Hand:  Did Obama Just Legislate the Gospel?   
Theology - Is Wallis a Marxist?  A New Video Surfaces
Reviews - "The Cost of Discipleship"   
Review -"A Theology For The Social Gospel" - Sin by Walter Rauschenbusch
Review -"A Theology For The Social Gospel" - The Atonement by Walter Rauschenbusch
Review -"A Theology For the Social Gospel" - Part 1 by Walter Rauschenbusch
Review -"The Great Awakening" Part 1 by Jim Wallis
Review -"The Great Awakening" Part 2 by Jim Wallis
GBC - Bonhoeffer on Cheap Grace  
GBC -  Bonhoeffer on Anxiety  
GBC - Bonhoeffer on the Golden Rule 
GBC - Bonhoeffer on Treasures in Heaven  
GBC - Bonhoeffer on Matthew 5:7-9 
GBC - Bonhoeffer: The Meaning of Poor In Spirit and the Joy of Being Spiritual Bankrupt
GBC - Bonhoeffer:  "By Willing Endurance We Cause Suffering to Pass" 
GBC - Weekly Recommendation: "The Cost of Discipleship"
GBC - Bonhoeffer: Truth and the Cross

The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 4

Perspicuity and the Challenge of Theology

Rollins has no intention to undermine theology or to count it useless, but to redefine its job description.  Theology, since the Enlightenment, has been the process of knowing and understanding God with the Bible open being interpreted rationally and objectively.  Now, however, one does not “do theology” but must rather overcome and be transformed by it: “we do not master it but are mastered by it.”  In other words, theology is “the place where God speaks into human discourse” and “makes its appearance in the world.”  Theology must not only be about words, but primarily about actions.  Theology is not done right until it transforms the theologian to take their theology to the streets.

The difference is between viewing God as subject and object.  Modernity views the task of theology as understanding God objectively.  To know God – or anyone else for that matter – objectively is to collect data and other sources of information.  To treat theology as an object to be grasped keeps the theologian and God distant from one another.  The Emergent conversation treats theology as a subject where the collection of data is not the main purpose of theology.  Subjective theology seeks to gain insight beyond the limits of objective theology, “a knowledge that is only opened up in love.”  God, then, “is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in.”[1]


[1]  Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God, 22.


The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 2 
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 3 



For more:
Theology -  Thesis: Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Social Gospel
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 3
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 4
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 5
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 6 

The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 3

The Unknown Known God

Perhaps the best treatment regarding an Emergent view on the perspicuity of Scripture from an Emergent perspective comes from Peter Rollins in his book How (Not) to Speak of God.  Regarding revelation Rollins argues:
  
Christianity is generally accepted to rest upon the belief that God has communicated with humanity via revelation . . . meaning that Christianity is premised upon the idea that there is a connection between the creation and the creator.  [1]

This leads to the question, how does one come to an understanding of this revelation?  Rollins suggests that “for the contemporary Church the answer basically boils down to this: revelation is that which reveals.”  In other words, revelation gives man “privileged access to the mind of God,” and is thus “the very opposite of concealment.”  As a result, the modern  Church has systematized this revelation as a science “that places God within the realm of reason.”  [2]
  
To Rollins, this is nothing more than remnants of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.  Although the Church originally rejected “the anti-ecclesiastical slant of the time . . . the Church and many theologians wished to retain the centrality of revelation, they eagerly embraced the Enlightenment’s high regard concerning reason.”  This presupposition was that “humans had a capacity to grasp objective, universal truth” whether through the empirical sciences or through the hermeneutics of the theologian.  [3]
  
By the beginning of the twentieth century the idea that one could grasp absolute and universal truth without any underlying influences began to be rejected (Rollins sites atheists Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Frued who were among the most influential in this regard).  What the turn of the century revealed was:
  
to point out that when we make absolute claims concerning what we believe about the world or God, acting as if our opinions were the resulting of some painstaking, objective and rational reflection we end up deceiving ourselves, for our understanding is always an interpretation of the information before us (whether the raw material of the world or revelation) and thus is always affected by what we bring to the table.  [4]

In other words, the turn from modernism to postmodernism led man to realize that it is impossible to approach reason or revelation without the baggage [as Bell put it] of experience, culture, “biological traits,” influence, “economic position,” or prejudices.  Rollins calls this approach the “‘critique of ideology’ because of the way that it questions the extent to which any existing understanding of the world is able to really express anything objective about how the world really is.”  The result of such “deconstructive thinking” is “a radical undermining” of any notion that absolute, universal truth can be known about God even through Divine Revelation.  Human beings cannot grasp an “objective world in an objective manner.” [5]
  
This radically affects hermeneutics and how one approaches biblical language, commands, descriptions, and purpose.  At this point, Rollins applies one’s inability to think objectively to how the Bible describes God:
  
We are presented with a warrior God and a peacemaker, a God of territorial allegiance and a God who transcends all territorial divides, an unchanging God and a God who can be redirected, a God of peace and a God of war, a God who is always watching the world and a God who fails to notice the oppression against Israel in Egypt. [6]

The Bible paints these paradoxical images of God not for the systematic theologian, but to make the point that God is beyond human reason.  The point the writers of Scripture seem to be making, as they are undoubtably aware of these inconsistencies of God, is that “the unnameable is omninameable.”  Such inconsistencies regarding God were written in order to ensure “that none of us can legitimately claim to understand God as God really is.”  [7]
  
Biblical revelation, then, is not the opposite of concealment, but rather “has concealment built into its very heart.”  Rollins undercuts “fundamentalist Christianity that would require religious certainty and lay claim to a correct interpretation of God . . . Hence revelation ought not to be thought of either as that which makes God known or as that which leaves God unknown, but rather as the overpowering light that renders God known as unknown.”  [8]
  
To Rollins, this fundamentalist hermeneutic towards Scripture has dangerous affects.  First  the danger of not being transformed by Scripture because one is distracted by the necessity to rightly understand Scripture.  Rollins uses the illustration of a painting.  It is not important for everyone to have the same interpretation of the painting, but that everyone love it and be challenged by it.  This faulty fundamentalism is what has led to unnumbered denominations.  What divides them is not their love for Scripture, but the claim that one denomination has the correct interpretation while the others do not.
  
Secondly, “enslavement to the idea of revelation” as clear and can be objectively known by anyone “has meant that the development of a robust theology of reconciliation has always proved difficult,” within modern Evangelicalism.  Why?  Because of Evangelicalism’s “emphasis upon the primacy of what we believe about our beloved over and above the insight that what unifies us is our desire to embrace the beloved.”  [9]  Rather than finding unity, fundamentalist Christianity, rooted in modernism, causes divisions.
  
How does this relate to perspicuity?  If God is unknowable, then it is foolish to believe that His word is clear, precise, and can be accurately dissected and digested especially since Scripture is primarily about God.  The suggestion that the unknowable has become knowable through the written word is preposterous.  Here Rollins echoes the infamous Erasmus and Martin Luther debate over free will.  Though the two men in the 15th Century were arguing free will and human depravity, they repeatedly returned to their argument over perspicuity.  Erasmus, like Rollins, suggested that since God is unknowable, then His Word is obscure.  After all, how can words describe the Divine Creator?  Luther responded with clarification.  Scripture affirms that God is unknowable, but never affirms that Scripture, then, is unknowable.  Instead, what can be known about God has been clearly laid out for us by the Spirit of God.
  
It seems then that Rollins is siding with Erasmus in this debate.  God is too big for words, thus the words of Scripture are obscure.


[1]  Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God, 7.

[2]  Ibid., 7-8.

[3]  Ibid., 8.

[4]  Ibid., 9.
[5]  Ibid., 10-11.
[6]  Ibid., 13.
[7]  Ibid.
[8]  Ibid., 16-17.
[9]  Ibid., 17-18.


The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church - Part 1
The Clarity of Ambiguity:  The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the emergent Church - Part 2 

For more:
Theology -  Thesis: Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accommodation to the Social Gospel
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 3
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 4
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 5
Theology - The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 6