tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77601022024-03-13T23:54:48.158+13:00Theo GeekAnswering the unaskable questionsAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-61926436245039104432011-03-08T16:00:00.005+13:002011-03-08T16:21:34.760+13:00My Book is PublishedThe book that a friend and I have been working on part time for the last six years (!) is finally published.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:135%;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1456389807?ie=UTF8&tag=thegee038-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1456389807">Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation</a></span><img class=" nuzyzbtabegelrfexboy nuzyzbtabegelrfexboy nuzyzbtabegelrfexboy" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thegee038-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1456389807" alt="" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" border="0" height="1" width="1" /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1456389807?ie=UTF8&tag=thegee038-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1456389807"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 107px; height: 160px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZKmp8XArpaM/TXWfMYupEKI/AAAAAAAAACE/lFwV9KvXByk/s320/514YWBUA73L._SL160_.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5581542348340924578" border="0" /></a><img class=" nuzyzbtabegelrfexboy nuzyzbtabegelrfexboy nuzyzbtabegelrfexboy" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thegee038-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1456389807" alt="" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" border="0" height="1" width="1" />During the Reformation, the Reformers deliberately altered Christian teaching in an attempt to bring it more in line with what they believed the bible taught. After the Reformation a certain set of beliefs became fairly common across much of Protestant thinking. This theology taught that humans were hell-bound due to sin but that Jesus came to save us by dying on the cross and taking the punishment we deserved. The idea goes that by believing in him and his saving work his punishment becomes effective for us and we can go to heaven instead. This paradigm of salvation, known as penal substitutionary atonement, is often alleged to be "what the Bible teaches". However, there are many reasons to think that penal substitution is not in fact what the Bible teaches - see my book for the details.<br /><br />So if the Reformers got it wrong, what theology is actually taught by the Bible? Well, basically the theology that was taught by Christians before the Reformers came on the scene and which the Reformers rejected. In Protestant terminology this theology teaches that salvation is about "sanctification" (moral transformation) rather than "justification". It says that what God cares about, and judges people on is their 'hearts' - their inner moral character. God wants to lead people to be more loving, and he does this through the teachings and example of Jesus and the Holy Spirit at work in people. My book works through the details of the original Christian beliefs and looks at how we can be sure that this is really what the Bible teaches.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-90877385663632931552009-09-17T15:00:00.001+12:002009-09-17T15:16:57.313+12:00Review: Deliverance of God - Review IntroductionDouglas Campbell's 1000-page tome, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul</span> is finally <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Deliverance-God-Apocalyptic-Rereading-Justification/dp/0802831265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253153720&sr=8-1">available</a>. It argues that the traditional Protestant/Lutheran reading of Paul is fundamentally all wrong. Rather, a completely and utterly different paradigm of salvation is in fact taught by Paul.<br /><br />I will be reviewing, discussing, and engaging with this book on this blog over the coming weeks. I may quite possibly also engage with the views of other bloggers who discuss it (such as <a href="http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_weblog/">Andy Goodliff</a> and <a href="http://seanthebaptist.typepad.com/sean_the_baptist/">Sean the Baptist</a>).<br /><br />I was looking forward to the book having read Campbell's earlier work <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Pauls-Gospel-Suggested-Strategy/dp/056708292X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253155400&sr=8-2">The Quest for Paul's Gospel</a> and finding myself in essential agreement with him. Campbell and I both agree about the basic paradigm of salvation over against traditional Protestant thinking. Since my own views are roughly a mix of those of Sanders, Dunn, Campbell and Stowers, I am anticipating an overall agreement with Campbell's basic ideas throughout the book, with various disagreements on particulars.<br /><br />One thing that <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> annoys me about Campbell's writing style that I want to get out of the way right now and so never have to repeat in this series is that he over-complicates things. As a child I was once told that anyone could make simple ideas sound complex and hard to understand, but the sign of an intelligent person was making complex ideas simple. As a result, I have worked throughout my life on the skill of explaining complex things simply, and like to think I am pretty good at it. I've come to see there are many many advantages in keeping things simple and avoiding jargon, and that so often people who use complex jargon make things hard for themselves. Campbell on the other hand, seems to love using the longest and most complex words possible. A good example is what we use to describe our paradigm of salvation:<br /><ul><li>Most scholars' jargon-label for our position: "Apocalyptic"</li><li>My label: "Moral transformation"</li><li>Campbell's label: "Pneumatologically participatory martyrological eschatology" [!]</li></ul>Okay, so that example comes from Campbell's previous work, and in the current work he has relabeled his position to "the alternative paradigm". However his basic writing style hasn't changed and he seems to love discussing "epistemological, anthropological, christological and eschatological implications of soteriological paradigms"... ~sigh~Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-56739526516593206072009-01-09T10:22:00.002+13:002009-01-09T10:44:08.446+13:00Campbell on Romans and pistis christouI just came across the most wonderful article on the interpretation of <span style="font-style:italic;">pistis christou</span> in Romans:<br /><br />Douglas A. Campbell, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (with special reference to Romans 1:17 & 3:22).” SBL, 2007. (<a href="http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/paulandscripture/Campbell_Faithfulness_of_Jesus_Christ.pdf">online here</a>)<br /><br />Campbell espouses my own views almost as if he were reading my mind. (Perhaps because we're both kiwis?) Our overall interpretations of Paul as well as most of the details seem almost identical. I suspect that once we both make key exegetical decisions identically the details tend to resolve themselves identically too.<br /><br />Although I suspect there are some differences of opinion on other issues. I can't remember offhand what Campbell's interpretation of the phrase 'righteousness of God' was, but I got the impression when reading the above article that his view might be different to my one.<br /><br />I enjoyed Campbell's book <i>The Quest for Paul's Gospel: A Suggested Strategy</i> and am really looking forward to his forthcoming book <i>The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul</i>.<br /><br />I think I shall add a reference to my own (hopefully) forthcoming book on early Christian salvation theology, saying to look no further than Campbell for my views on pistis christou.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-65943106585428646572008-08-27T17:46:00.003+12:002008-08-27T17:59:27.034+12:00How St Paul got his beliefsSomething I've found greatly helps me understand different scholars interpretation of Paul's theology are 'Just So' stories... one to three small paragraphs of a hypothetical and <span style="font-style: italic;">plausible </span>story, outlining how and why Paul came to hold the various beliefs he does.<br /><br />Such a story should explain why Paul's theology has the characteristic emphases it does. I find that such stories have great explanatory power. They point to what things were important to him and why, they point to reasons for inconsistencies, and they can be used to deduce what the scholar thinks Paul's view are on other issues. Overall, they make the depiction of Paul seem more plausible and real, and hence more convincing.<br /><br />If a scholar makes no effort to provide such a story, I often try to puzzle one out myself that would account for Paul having the beliefs the scholar alleges. In cases where I am unable unable to construct a hypothetical story that could have resulted in Paul thinking the things the scholar alleges him to have thought... I tend to be very unconvinced of the arguments.<br /><br />So what are your 'just so' stories? How did the apostle Paul get his beliefs?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-19373517896619753582008-08-19T10:14:00.003+12:002008-08-19T13:24:34.540+12:00Modern bible translations: half goodMainstream modern bible translations do two things very well.<br /><br />1) Textual Criticism - getting the original letters right<br />There is widespread concern about working out the letters of the original texts as accurately as possible. A large amount of scholarly effort has been put into performing exhaustive analyses of surviving manuscripts. Published critical editions tend to be reliable and comprehensive. Biblical prefaces will usually discuss what critical editions were used and whether the translation team contained any experts in the field who used their own judgments. Most importantly, it is extremely common for translations to have footnotes that alert the reader to textual variants.<br /><br />Of course, the lack of surviving manuscripts from the first couple of centuries places an inherent limit on the accuracy scholars can achieve. Equally it might be argued that scholars have made various mistakes or that the early Christians corrupted the texts. However, overall, there is a lot of concern about getting this right, a lot of effort put into it, and the reader is alerted about these issues.<br /><br />2) Readable English - getting the English editing right<br />There is widespread concern about producing the most readable English translations possible. A large amount of effort gets put into improving the readability of the English versions. Biblical prefaces will usually discuss the ways in which they have aimed to improve readability. The diverse range of English translations offer readers a full spectrum of formal to colloquial language.<br /><br />Of course, all translations have some verses that are hard to read or where the grammar is bad. The pros and cons of literal versus paraphrase translations can be endlessly debated. But, overall, a lot of effort gets put into making translations easier to read, and the variety of different English translations cater to all tastes.<br /><br />Coming soon: <span style="font-style: italic;">Modern bible translations: half bad</span>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-43887621527692626092008-08-13T16:30:00.004+12:002008-08-13T16:59:49.689+12:00The meaning of 'faith'People seem to have very different ideas about what 'faith' means. Everyone seems to think their view is obvious.<br /><br />I enjoy reading discussions about the relationship between faith and works in salvation. Yet such discussions seem to suffer when no effort is made to define 'faith'. I am amazed at how often even scholars omit discussion of the meaning of 'faith' when talking about the relationship between faith and works.<br /><br />For example, I've just been reading a discussion of Origen's thought on the relationship between faith and works in justification. I would have thought that such an analysis should ask what meaning Origen gives to these key terms. Apparently not.<br /><br />Surely to understand how faith and works might relate, it is crucial to understand what they themselves are? Maybe not. I suppose that for most popular definitions of 'faith', the concept of 'faith' is entirely separate from the concept of 'works'. Such defintions only become relevant if you take a view like mine that the actual definition and meaning of the word 'faith' (<span style="font-style: italic;">pistis</span>) means something that overlaps with the concept of 'works' (eg means 'the faithful doing of God's will' or somesuch). In that case, in asking how faith and works relate, you are asking a very subtle question of the distinction between faithfully doing God's will and doing the good works that God wills. It is suddenly essential to know <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly</span> how 'faith' and 'works' are being defined so that the subtle distinctions can be understood.<br /><br />But if 'faith' and 'works' are completely separate - eg. 'believing things' and 'doing stuff' - then you don't need to enquire so closely into their definitions in order to talk about their relationship to each other.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-21527725518206505472008-08-01T14:23:00.002+12:002008-08-01T14:35:02.908+12:00What do you label it?When studying the history of doctrine it is traditional to label different periods during which doctrine was relatively stable and refer to the period as a whole by name.<br /><br />So, for example, people talk of "pre-Nicene" Christianity, or "the scholastic period", or "the Greek Fathers", or "medieval doctrine" etc.<br /><br />A question I've struggled with over the last few years of writing is what do you call the standard evangelical post-reformation protestant doctrine of the modern period?<br /><br />I'm thinking in particular of the set of salvation doctrines which seem to be standard during this period which see the gospel as being about original sin, grace, penal substitution, and salvation by faith.<br /><br />Various names I've used at times, none of which I'm entirely happy with include:<br />"Evangelical doctrine", "the modern gospel", "Reformation theology", "protestant thought", "confessional protestantism", "the post-Reformation period", "modern thought", "typical protestant doctrine"... etc<br /><br />Since many Roman Catholics would agree with a lot of these views I would be happier if the name for the modern doctrinal period was broad enough to include many Catholics as well.<br /><br />It really needs to be something short and sweet which I can use over and over again, and clear enough that I don't have to give an explanation before using it.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-578739787139106702008-07-22T20:52:00.004+12:002008-07-25T08:56:40.950+12:00Stowers and Romans 1:18-32Stanley Stowers' <span style="font-style: italic;">A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles</span> is an insightful introduction to the ancient concept of "Speech in Character", if a bit dry at times. He explains well the presence of the phenomenon in Romans 7.<br /><br />However I take issue with his treatment of Rom 1:18-32. His view is very similar to mine, in that he sees Paul critiquing the hypocritical person who is busy condemning others in the passage. However, he is unwilling to view the passage as an instance of speech in character primarily because:<br /><blockquote>"[A view like the one of it being a speech-in-character] assumes as a patently explicit and obvious Jewish doctrine that God punishes gentiles severely but mercifully overlooks Jewish evil... I find no Jewish texts explicitly saying that God will ignore Jewish sin because of the covenant." (pg 29)<br /></blockquote><br />Well, I find a Jewish text explicitly saying that very thing: Wisdom of Solomon. ie The text from which Paul is <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html">quoting</a> in Romans 1:18-32 (Stowers agrees Paul is referencing Wisdom pg 87). In fact, Paul quotes two entire chapters of Wisdom of Solomon (and as a result, has to paraphrase), in what is surely the longest quotation in the bible, and in doing so implicitly sets Wisdom of Solomon up as a potentially major player within the rhetoric of Romans. Well here is what Wisdom has to say on the issue of God punishing Jews and Gentiles. <span style="font-style: italic;">Immediately </span>after the tirade about Gentile evil and their sins and the coming punishment of God upon the gentiles in chapters 13-14 that Paul quotes in Romans 1, we read:<br /><blockquote>“But you our [the Jews] God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy. For even if we [the Jews] sin we are yours, knowing your power; but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours. For to know you is complete righteousness, and to know your power is the root of immortality.” (15:1-3)<br /></blockquote>The writer then gets carried away once again for another chapter's worth at the evil and stupidity of gentiles and the punishments they will receive from God. Then we get another contrast with the goodness of Jews and the way God treats them positively:<br /><blockquote>"Instead of this punishment [which the Gentiles received] you showed kindness to your people". (16:2)<br /></blockquote>Then the writer gives us a long list of contrasts of how God punished gentiles and blessed Jews for the rest of the book. Here is an example:<br /><blockquote>"For they [Gentiles] were killed by the bites of locusts and flies, and no healing was found for them, because they deserved to be punished by such things. But your children [Jews] were not conquered even by the fangs of venomous serpents, for your mercy came to their help and healed them. (16:9-10)"</blockquote>The Gentiles are repeatedly labeled "the ungodly" throughout. We are told "they justly suffered because of their wicked acts" (19:13). We are told that the wrath of God against Jews is stopped simply by virtue of "the oaths and covenants given to our ancestors" (18.22). The writer concludes the book with the statement:<br /><blockquote>"For in everything, O Lord, you have exalted and glorified your people, and you have not neglected to help them at all times and in all places. (19:22)"<br /></blockquote><br />Wisdom of Solomon seems to contain exactly and precisely the view that Stowers says is necessary to make sense of the idea that Rom 1:18-32 is speech-in-character! Furthermore, I believe that seeing this viewpoint as representing that of Paul's opponents explains the flow of Romans through to chapter four where Paul comments in passing that in his view God justifies the "ungodly" (ie the gentiles).Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-21000064568788754382008-07-22T14:47:00.003+12:002008-07-22T15:46:55.345+12:00Romans 1:18-32 and Wisdom of SolomonThe incredibly strong similarities between Romans 1:18-32 and Wisdom of Solomon 13-14 have long been noted by scholars. Paul appears to be deliberately quoting (paraphrasing) a Jewish piece of anti-gentile propaganda.<br /><br />Isn't that a strange thing for Paul to do? Yes. We would expect Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> to agree with such anti-Gentile and pro-Jewish sentiments.<br /><br />Indeed, immediately after the quote, Paul launches into a <span style="font-style:italic;">critique</span> of people who hold the quoted view.<br /><br />Romans 1:18-32 seems to be an instance of an ancient literary device called "speech-in-character" (prosopopoeia). Or, more simply put, is what we would call a "dialog" or "debate", with Paul deliberately presenting an opposition viewpoint and responding. It is now well-established that in Romans 7 Paul uses a lengthy speech-in-character without warning his readers. Equally, in many part of Romans that take a question and answer format, Paul is obviously engaging in a pseudo-dialog with opposing viewpoints.<br /><br />Seeing Wisdom of Solomon as representing Paul's <span style="font-style:italic;">ongoing debate opponent through the rest of Romans 2-4</span> is particularly helpful. Wisdom 15-19 takes the view that God has chosen the Jews, protects them from sin, and that as a result Jews do not sin like the Gentiles do. It is exactly such a viewpoint that Paul is arguing against in Romans 2-4 - he asserts that there is equality before God and that the Jews do not enjoy special sinlessness.<br /><br />A important point is that Paul has no need to prove that every human individual sins (hence the oft-observed fact that his argument <span style="font-style:italic;">fails</span> to prove this is irrelevant). Rather, he wants to prove that some Jews in history have been particularly sinful on occasion and that therefore the Jews as a people are <span style="font-style:italic;">not </span>protected from sin simply by virtue of being Jews as Wisdom of Solomon claims.<br /><br />The long and the short of this is that Romans 1:18-32 is <span style="font-style:italic;">not Paul speaking</span> (just like much of Romans 7), and that Paul in fact <span style="font-style:italic;">disagrees</span> with the speaker on many issues, and the speaker becomes Paul's debate partner for that section of Romans.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-17686058526872464692008-07-21T08:37:00.003+12:002008-07-21T08:47:04.558+12:00The invention of Imputed Righteousness<a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/mcgraths-history-of-justification.html">McGrath</a> explains that the criteria used throughout the Reformation period to distinguish Protestant from Catholic was the question of whether justification was forensic (ie used a legal, court-based, paradigm). (pg 215) McGrath argues that the concept was fundamentally new within the Christian theological tradition, as was the Protestant separation of sanctification and justification.<br /><br />"Luther... introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through their justification, humans are <span style="font-style:italic;">intrinsically</span> sinful yet <span style="font-style:italic;">extrinsically</span> righteous." (pg 213, cf 217) "The significance of the Protestant distinction between <span style="font-style:italic;">iustifcatio</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">regeneratio </span>is that a fundamental intellectual discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition through the recognition of a difference, where none had previously been acknowledged to exist." ... "The Protestant understanding of the <span style="font-style:italic;">nature</span> of justification thus represents a theological <span style="font-style:italic;">novum</span>".<br /><br />Interestingly, McGrath explains that the Protestants at the time vehemently denied that their doctrine was new and unprecedented. Melanchthon claimed he was returning to Augustine's teachings on justification. McGrath explains that in reality these Protestant claims were entirely without basis and that the Catholics were Augustinian and Melanchthon was departing from Augustine. (pg 216)Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-3607613852673737372008-07-18T13:50:00.001+12:002009-03-29T11:57:34.860+13:00Steinbart on the history of doctrineIn <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/mcgraths-history-of-justification.html">McGrath's book on justification</a> he mentioned a person who caught my interest:<br /><br />Gotthelf Samuel Steinbart (1738-1809) was one of the first writers of what we would call modern biblical scholarship. He extensively studied of the history of Christian doctrines, and concluded that originally Christianity had been a religion focused on moral teachings. However, over the course of time Christian doctrine had been distorted by the introduction of random views, most importantly including:<blockquote>1. Augustine's invention of Original Sin<br />2. Augustine's invention of Predestination<br />3. Anselm's invention of Satisfaction<br />4. The Protestant invention of Imputed Righteousness<br /></blockquote>Steinbart called for a rejection of such innovations and a return to historic orthodox Christianity as it used to be prior to the invention of such doctrines.<br /><br />I found it quite amazing that I, myself, have on this blog long made exactly the same arguments based on my own study of doctrinal history... arguments that Steinbart made almost 250 years ago. It is <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/06/church-history-is-somewhat-depressing.html">somewhat depressing</a> that historians of doctrine have been agreeing with Steinbart's conclusions for the last 250 years, and yet nothing has changed.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-64497911183611667302008-07-16T12:00:00.000+12:002008-07-16T12:00:39.701+12:00Thoughts on doctrinal developmentI like studying doctrinal history, and understanding how, when, and why, different Christian doctrines and ideas have changed over time. As a result I have formed some opinions about the validity of various doctrines based on their origins and history.<br /><br />I am occasionally bemused when someone expresses the view that it's <span style="font-style:italic;">not legitimate</span> to draw opinions on a doctrine from a study of its origins and history, and that "doctrinal development" is perfectly allowable.<br /><br />I tend to side with the following view:<br /><blockquote>"the Gospel is never different from what it was before. Hence, if at any time someone says that the faith includes something which yesterday was not said to be of the faith, it is always <span style="font-style:italic;">heterodoxy</span>, which is any doctrine different from <span style="font-style:italic;">orthodoxy</span>. There is no difficulty about recognising false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it is recognised at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new." (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, <span style="font-style:italic;">Premiere Instruction pastorale</span> 27)</blockquote><br />Thoughts?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-984451180137055972008-07-15T14:46:00.003+12:002008-07-15T17:07:04.927+12:00McGrath's History of JustificationI recently read <span style="font-style: italic;">Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification</span> (Third Edition) by Alister McGrath.<br /><br />Overall, it's not a book I'd recommend. The book runs to 400 pages and deals in detail with the thinking of medieval and reformation scholars on grace, the justice of God, and the process of justification. The two major things I got out of it were that:<br /><br />1) Everyone prior to the Reformation saw "justification" as involving actually being made righteous. The Protestant ideas of forensic justification and distinguishing justification from regeneration and sanctification were fundamentally new and unprecedented in church theology.<br /><br />2) The pre-Augustinian fathers didn't have much interest in the word "justification" and talked about salvation using other ideas. In the last 300 years the Roman Catholic church has largely stopped using the word also, and in the last 50 years most Protestant churches have largely stopped using it too.<br /><br />There, I just condensed a 400 page book to two small paragraphs...Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-80327256946469199842008-07-07T11:01:00.003+12:002008-07-07T11:43:24.183+12:00Roger Pearse and Cyril of AlexandriaRoger Pearse of <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/">Tertullian.org</a> and the <a href="http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/">Thoughts on Antiquity</a> blog has done a lot of great work over the years in making English translations of the early church fathers available online. Thanks Roger! It's great to have such works more freely available.<br /><br />For some reason though, recently he has been focusing on the works of Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril was one of the least positive influences in Christian history, so I have mixed feelings about this. Roger <a href="http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=435">comments</a> "It is hard for anglophone readers to like Cyril." Among his many other endearing traits, Cyril was the first to permanently split the Christian church. Roger writes:<br /><blockquote>At the Council of Ephesus in 433, Cyril obtained the condemnation of his rival Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople for heresy. The vote was taken before the eastern bishops who supported Nestorius could arrive. When they did arrive they excommunicated Cyril. Both sides then appealed to the imperial government, then run by the eunuch Chrysaphius, who wisely deposed them both. After a campaign of letter writing and bribery, Cyril was allowed to return and the decisions of the synod endorsed. The Nestorian schism had begun, and has still not been resolved to this day.<br /><br />After the synod, Cyril’s reputation was tarnished. Isidore of Pelusium wrote to him that, while he agreed with Cyril theologically, a lot of people thought that the Alexandrian Archbishop had behaved like a jerk. (From <a href="http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=469">here</a>)</blockquote>The above is an example of one of the "great" ecumenical church councils in action. I love their careful consideration of the evidence and Christian willingness to carefully discuss things prayerfully in brotherly love. The way they handled things gives me such confidence that their decisions were correct. Thanks to this God-guided council we were saved from the errors of Nestorianism and Pelagianism by the inspired St Cyril. (As I said, <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/06/church-history-is-somewhat-depressing.html">Church history is somewhat depressing</a>)<br /><br />Elsewhere Roger <a href="http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=426">quotes Cyril</a> as saying:<br /><blockquote>indeed we often purchase men’s friendship with large sums of gold, and if those of high rank are reconciled to us, we feel great joy in offering them presents even beyond what we can afford, because of the honour which accrues to us from them.</blockquote>But then later Roger <a href="http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=435">expresses surprise </a>when reading the letters of Cyril and finds him bribing people:<br /><blockquote>I was astonished to find, as ‘letter’ 96, a list of ‘presents’ to be given to various court personages in Constantinople. The FoC editor simply describes these as bribes, and, since they indicate that the purpose of the gifts is to purchase favour or disarm opponents, so they must indeed be!</blockquote>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-30425622810390427662008-07-04T09:10:00.002+12:002008-07-04T09:32:08.919+12:00The parable of wheat and poisonous weedsI am still intrigued at an interpretation of the parable of the wheat and chaff I read a while ago.<br /><br />In the parable, a weed is spotted by the servants growing among the wheat. Apparently this particular weed was poisonous and was well-known to the farmers in Israel at the time who knew that it was essential to remove it as fast as possible to stop it contaminating and destroying the entire wheat crop.<br /><br />In the parable, the landowner orders the servants not to remove the weeds in case they accidentally remove a bit of wheat too. Here the landowner exemplifies two attributes: greed, and ignorance of sensible farming practices.<br /><br />Israel at the time of Jesus had a serious economic problem of mortgagee sales, where farming families lost their ancestral land to rich and greedy landowners (and then would often be the servants on that land). So, imagine the parable ended here, and consider what Jesus' hearers would think. They would see him as describing such a landowner who has gained control of some land and that as a result of greed and ignorance has given a stupid command that results in his entire crop becoming contaminated by poisonous weeds.<br /><br />If the story ended there, Jesus' listeners (presumably farmers) would have laughed at the stupidity of such landowners and the genre of the parable would be essentially a political parody as Jesus reinforced the stupidity of what was happening within Israel.<br /><br />Of course, in the gospels as we have them, the story doesn't end there and gets interpreted as being about God and final judgment. A lot of scholars believe that the gospels misinterpret several of Jesus' parables in this manner, reinterpreting them to be about God <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2007/12/jesus-parables-two-interpretations.html"><br />when originally they were political/economic parodies</a>. Given that such a massive proportion of Jesus' ministry (80% or so?) is about economics anyway, offhand it would seem unsurprising if these parables were too.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-17349709250973986462008-06-26T13:24:00.003+12:002008-06-26T13:57:16.182+12:00Does 'All' Mean 'All'?It's always amusing to see people arguing over whether "all" really means "all" in a particular biblical passage.<br /><br />There's a nice <a href="http://www.christilling.de/articles/Caragounis_Universal_Salvation.pdf">demonstration here</a> that in numerous and uncontroversial instances, the bible uses "all" to mean "lots" <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> "all".<br /><br />I have long agreed with the New Perspective view that when Paul says "all" are sinners, he does not mean "all". Rather he means "some Jews and some Gentiles" (ie "various people of <span style="font-weight: bold;">every </span>nationality"). There are many good arguments for such a view, but one I had never seen, has been suggested by a reader of <a href="http://www.christilling.de/blog/2008/06/readers-question.html">Chris' blog</a>...<br /><br />Paul writes <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"</span><b style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">all</b><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"> have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"</span> and immediately follows with <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"</span><b style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">they</b> <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">are now justified by his grace as a gift" (Rom 3:23-24)</span>. So if "all" means "all" have sinned, then "they" are also "all" justified. So taking the (reasonable) assumption that Paul isn't teaching universal salvation, "all" in this passage doesn't mean "all".Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-15928795783571293022008-06-22T10:00:00.002+12:002008-06-22T10:48:08.410+12:00What makes something 'another religion'?I've been pondering lately the question of what makes something a different religion. For example, it is generally accepted that Judaism is a different religion to Christianity. Yet both share much of the same history, worship the same God, share many of the same scriptures etc. Likewise Islam is considered a different religion to both Judaism and Christianity despite a lot of overlap too.<br /><br />On the other hand, there was a group called the Gnostics in the second century. They believed the creation of the world was an error made by a demigod and that Jesus had been sent by a higher god to help rescue some of the pure spiritual souls that had become trapped in matter. Through secret knowledge of the nature of the cosmos, these souls could escape the realm of matter after death. The Gnostics generally rejected the Old Testament, and had their own New Testament books and gospels. Now I would want to say Gnosticism is a different religion to Christianity. It isn't just a "heresy", but it's another religion entirely. Yet generally it is described by historians of doctrine as simply a heresy. I can't quite fathom that.<br /><br />Really, the question I have been pondering over the last couple of months, is whether Calvinism can really be called Christianity or whether it must be counted as a separate religion. When I pull my nose out of a book about New Testament or pre-Nicene Christianity and wander out onto the internet, I see statements by Calvinists that simply have <span style="font-style: italic;">nothing</span> in common with early Christianity whatsoever. Of course, the same argument could potentially be made whenever Christian doctrine varies, and thus could be used against all heresies throughout history and all Christians today. However, some differences are obviously more profound than others and Calvinism increasingly strikes me as being so antithetical to early Christianity that it is hard to consider it anything other than a different religion.<br /><br />If we consider the core doctrines of the early Christian faith:<br /><ol style="margin-top: 0in;" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Monotheism</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Christ as Teacher of Righteousness<br /></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Final Judgment by Works</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-NZ">Free Will</span></li></ol>Catholicism and non-Calvinistic Protestantism vary between endorsing two to four of these doctrines. Yet Calvinism agrees only with the first and is deliberately and implacably opposed to the other three (ie 2. Penal substitutionary atonement, 3. Judgment by faith and grace alone, 4. TULIP). Like the Gnostics, the Calvinist system of salvation bears no relationship whatsoever to the early Christian view. It also adds in a wide variety of additional doctrines (though is no worse than Roman Catholicism in this regard I suppose). Anyway, over the last couple of months as I have reflected on this, I have become convinced that Calvinism cannot be meaningfully classed as Christianity and represents such a complete departure from NT and pre-Nicene Christianity that it should be classified as a separate religion (at least from the point of view of doctrine - the issue of classifying religions is obviously more complex and has to take into account rituals, customs and practices etc as well).Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-43485849368292175862008-06-16T11:49:00.003+12:002008-06-16T17:00:03.594+12:00Why did it go so wrong?In my <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/06/church-history-is-somewhat-depressing.html">last post</a> I noted that church doctrine started going very wrong after the merge with the Roman Empire. In this post I'm going to list a few reasons why I think that was.<br /><br />Reading about the various events, I get the impression that there was no one single problem, but rather a huge variety of problems that were caused by the imperial period. Here is a list, in no particular order, of some of the factors that seem to have contributed to the issues:<br /><br />1. Direct interference by Emperors in the legislation of church doctrine. At times the Emperors made arbitrary decisions about which theological side to support.<br /><br />2. Positions of church leadership became positions of great wealth and power which were then sought after by the wrong people for the wrong motives. Some of the church leadership were in multi-million dollar positions and were some of the most powerful people in the Empire. Such positions were doubtless sought-after by atheists with political ambition who pretended to be Christians.<br /><br />3. Irregularities in the elections of church leaders. The elections of church leaders to prominent church positions of power were plagued with scandals and imperial interference.<br /><br />4. The notion of Orthodoxy within the Empire. The globalisation of the church brought with it a globalisation of doctrine. Previously, if a Christian in one part of the world invented a new doctrine, the change tended to be geographically confined. However, in an effort to promote Orthodoxy and stamp out heresy, the Councils and Emperors promulgated their decrees throughout the Empire, thus providing a mechanism to deliver doctrinal change to the entire church simultaneously.<br /><br />5. The use of force against those deemed heretics. The state became the enforcer of orthodoxy - those deemed heretics were taken away by state soldiers and tended to die either a quick or slow death when exiled to uninhabitable locations or to work in the salt mines.<br /><br />6. Extremely poor judicial processes for reviewing complaints of heresy. Often those accused of heresy were condemned without being allowed to present their case. Mere things like evidence or fair trials didn't stand in the way of councils ruling on topics. Most councils were not careful inquiries into truth but shams.<br /><br />7. General civil unrest and nominal Christianity. Riots were commons. The killing of churchmen at the hands of a 'Christian' mob who disagreed over theology was not uncommon. Those in positions of power within the church often instigated such riots for political reasons.<br /><br />8. Language differences. The Eastern Empire spoke Greek, the Western spoke Latin. This at times led to communication difficulties. It also caused Latin bible translations to be incorrect at times.<br /><br />9. Attempts at Sola Scriptura. Christian doctrinal tradition for the most part governed people's beliefs. But increasingly there were those who preferred to come up with their own doctrines based on their own exegesis of scripture, which were generally wrong as a result of using mistranslated passages or just poor exegesis. People then claimed the authority of scripture for such views.<br /><br />10. Lack of peer-review among influential theologians. It seemed common for particular theologians to gain a reputation in a certain geographical area and become the great theological champion of that area. Their theological utterances would subsequently be somewhat mindlessly parroted by Christians in that area without being peer reviewed by other prominent theologians across the Empire. Essentially, the major theologians tended to do their theology somewhat in isolation with little collaboration.<br /><br />11. Popularity as a measure of success. To a large extent, theological doctrines were measured by popularity - theological controversies tended to get resolved by vote. Particularly, if a theologian became sufficiently popular and respected within their geographical area, they could then begin to teach almost any heresy and their popularity would see them through. Anyone who challenged them could be silenced or ignored.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-51046918571854285432008-06-15T21:46:00.005+12:002008-06-16T09:37:16.692+12:00Church history is somewhat depressing.I've been reading a lot of books on the history of doctrine lately. Or, more precisely, the sections of them that deal with soteriological doctrines from the Apostolic Fathers to Augustine. I've finished going through the three shelves of them at the university library, so I'll have to find another library I suppose.<br /><br />What I am finding depressing is the post-Nicene period when Christianity was the state religion. The amount of corruption, church-politics, and imperial interference in the church and its doctrine at that time is simply dumbfounding. The reasons for which decisions were made varied from bad to worse. In fact I would simply go so far as to make the blanket statement that all decisions and decrees made within the church during the imperial period are not worthy of being used for toilet paper. The whole thing was one great moronic political circus.<br /><br />One historian I was reading today aptly commented: "the thinkers church historians write about are neither as logical, as truthful or as edifying in their morals as the devout usually expect." (Linonel Wickham pg 211 in <i>The Making of Orthodoxy</i> 1989 Ed. Rowan Williams) Another comments "There is no doubt that we would be repelled in the twentieth century should church leaders, professing to follow and practice the truths of Christ, were to use such methods [as were used by Cyril of Alexandria]" (Gordon Harper pg 88 in <i>The Heritage of Christian Thought</i> 1979)<br /><br />Time after time it was the side that is willing to go the furthest, play politics, manipulate others, bribe the right people, who won. It was virtually never about careful reasoning or informed discussion, but about power and politics. Time and again the arbitrary decrees of the Emperors were the turning point, and whichever side could control the Emperors' decisions won the game.<br /><br />It is disappointing to me to read of those who called themselves Christians acting like they did. But it is far worse to realize that their decisions which they made affected Christian doctrine and have affected many Christians to this day - although protestants have since escaped from a lot of that legacy.<br /><br />In case anyone is curious, the people who I am particular pissed off at are:<br /><ul><li>Cyril of Alexandria, uber-super-unmatched-bastard</li><li>Augustine, arch-heretic and doctrinal-innovator extraordinaire</li><li>Bishops of Rome, dumbasses with super-delusions of grandeur</li><li>Athanasius, all-round bastard</li><li>Church Councils, morons with power</li><li>Emperors, interfering morons with supreme power</li></ul><br />People who come out smelling of roses (perhaps somewhat tarnished by the manure they were living amongst):<br /><ul><li>St Pelagius, defender of orthodoxy</li><li>St Nestorius, suppressor of the cult of Mary</li></ul><br />On a slightly different note, something that surprises me somewhat when I consider it, is that informed scholarly opinion is so unanimous on these issues (eg Augustine being a heretical innovator and Pelagius defending previous orthodoxy against Augustine's innovations) and yet this has so completely not filtered through to people in the church. The books sit there in the library, and yet walking into a church and telling people you agree with Pelagius is likely to have those that have heard of Pelagianism upset at your 'heresy' instead of happy at your orthodoxy. It seems that scholars of the history of doctrine can write books that sit on the shelves all they like and that the beliefs of people in the church will simply carry on the way they did before. It's a funny world.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-89191211368305429512008-05-22T13:40:00.003+12:002008-05-22T14:04:38.541+12:00Defining 'the Gospel' and 'Evangelical'I have been pondering recently how different people define "the gospel" and "Evangelical" differently.<br /><br />For a lot of people, "the gospel" is a short message of the kind given in gospel presentations. It covers sin, holiness, Jesus, atonement, salvation etc. It is essentially a bit of systematic theology rooted in a particular interpretation of Paul's writings which calls the hearer to some sort of response.<br /><br />In particular it has been striking just how strong a contrast there is between this Pauline gospel and the "good news of the kingdom of God" that Jesus is depicted preaching in the gospels. A lot of Christians seem to assume that when Jesus preached the gospel he was in fact preaching what they think of as the gospel, without bothering to pay any attention to how the bible depicts Jesus' ministry.<br /><br />Evangelical is one of those words where everybody seems to have a different definition. It also seems to be one of those words that comes with a built-in value judgment - it's implicitly a good thing to be "evangelical" as it has connotations of committed to God, and believing the gospel. I was browsing this <a href="http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/">Evangelical Manifesto</a> and was quite surprised to find that throughout the document numerous different (and in my view, mutually exclusive) definitions of Evangelical were given.<br /><br />One of the definitions suggested that Evangelicals were true to and preached that gospel that Jesus preached. I found that comment surprising, since in my observation, Evangelicals tend to far prefer a Pauline form of the gospel to Jesus' form of it.<br /><br />Another interesting suggested definition is that Evangelical is the name for any and all Christians in history who are simple stock-standard committed lay Christians. What came as somewhat of a shock to me (as someone who has done of lot of research into the history of the development of doctrine) is that they followed this statement up with a short doctrinal list of allegedly what these average Christians throughout history have always believed... opps. They appear to have taken a list of what Evangelicals today hold to be their defining doctrinal views and arbitrarily assumed that throughout history average Christians also held those beliefs...Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-69035905497082910532008-05-06T10:04:00.003+12:002008-05-06T10:16:19.517+12:00Who knows their bible best?Thanks <a href="http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/05/fundamentalists-dont-know-their-bibles/">Doug</a> for the link to <a href="http://ncrcafe.org/node/1783">this article</a>. Apparently the Vatican commissioned an independent and extensive worldwide survey in an attempt to gain insight into people's knowledge of the bible.<br /><br />They found that the class of readers who knew their bibles best were the discerning readers who took the bible as authoritative but felt it was important to apply critical thinking and interpretation skills. Fundamentalists did not score nearly as well.<br /><br />It seems the study also found high biblical knowledge to not correlate with particular denominations (in other words Catholics are level with Evangelical Protestants, in general!) nor with political voting tendencies. Apparently, also, most people wanted a fair level of assistance in interpreting and understanding the bible, preferring not to do it alone.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-54588270154779958002008-05-05T15:08:00.002+12:002008-05-05T15:19:45.232+12:00The Resurrection of JesusIn the last week I have been studying passages in the NT (minus the gospels) that deal with the theological significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.<br /><br />One of the first things that became obvious is that there are significantly more passages that deal with Christ's resurrection than his death. A number of passages also assert that the resurrection is absolutely central to Christianity and without it Christianity is nothing (there are no corresponding statements made about the death of Christ). In short it is safe to say that the New Testament Christians saw the resurrection as more important than the death of Christ. Interesting how times have changed...<br /><br />The resurrection seems to be so important to the Christians because it proves that death is not the end - that there will be an afterlife, that there will be postmortem judgment and restitution, and in the act of resurrecting Christ God affirms Christ's teachings and publicly indicates the type of behavior God chooses to reward. As a result, the resurrection inspires Christians to live self-controlled lives, imitate Christ, and suffer martyrdom gladly.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-37064272963166392612008-05-05T09:41:00.003+12:002008-05-05T10:43:50.348+12:00Silly quote of the dayFrom <a href="http://blog.9marks.org/2008/04/on-the-meaning.html">here</a> (italics in original):<blockquote>The Christian gospel is in serious danger of being melted down into a call merely to do good works here and now in the social and political realms. ...a “gospel” that majors on good deeds and social work to the detriment of the atoning, saving work of Christ is no “gospel” at all. As I’ve put it elsewhere, it winds up making Christianity just another boring moralism that’s no different from any other religion in the world....<br /><br />I think you’re right to define and emphasize justification by faith alone in Christ alone as the heart of the Christian gospel. That is without doubt or equivocation the fountainhead of everything else, and <span style="font-style: italic;">you don’t get to the rest of the “good news” unless you start there</span>. In other words, to tell someone that it’s not really important to focus on the atonement, but rather that you can be a Christian just by being a “follower of Jesus” and by “living like Jesus” <span style="font-style: italic;">is not Christianity</span>. To be a Christian is to believe in Jesus, repenting of sins and trusting for salvation in his atoning, reconciling, justifying, substitutionary death on the cross.</blockquote>Okay, so I didn't manage to read through to the end of that before I cracked up laughing.<br /><br />A message "to do good works here and now in the social and political realms" strikes me as an extremely accurate description of the content of Jesus' public ministry as depicted in the gospels. The gospels present Jesus' ministry as a campaign over social issues, period. The social gospel is certainly well-founded in the biblical accounts of Jesus' ministry. So, according to the above writer, the Christian gospel is apparently "in serious danger" of being reduced to, well, the gospels. Dang, we surely can't allow that, can we? Apparently not, because as our above writer continues, that is "no gospel at all". Excuse me while I go and cut the four gospels out of my bible. One wonders why Christ bothered preaching "no gospel at all" in the course of his three year ministry.<br /><br />Next, the writer makes the accusation of moralism. 'Moralism' is the most common term historians of doctrine use to describe Christianity in the pre-Nicene period, namely because early Christianity was extremely moralistic. So as I was reading the above I mentally substituted: "it winds up making Christianity just another <strike>boring</strike> <span style="font-style:italic;">(?!)</span> moralism that’s no different from <strike>any other religion in the world</strike> <span style="font-style:italic;">early Christianity</span>." Of course, according to the above writer's definition, pre-Nicene Christianity is not Christianity, so maybe the writer wouldn't be concerned by this.<br /><br />Sadly, for some reason a popular apologetic tactic at the moment among some groups is to assert the totally arbitrary idea that "human religions" are about man trying to get merit before God whereas "true religion" is about man trusting in God for salvation, and it is usually further arbitrarily asserted without evidence that Christianity is the only religion in world history that fits the category of "true religion". Somehow I doubt the author's implicit claim that all non-Christian religions in world-history are "boring" rests on any evidence or any actual experience of other religions! I also note that if all non-Christian religions are moralistic then it means that the vast majority of humans in world-history felt that moralistic religions are a good type of religion, and suggests that non-moralistic forms of Christianity would generally be considered bad, thus calling the arbitrary value judgment that such religions are good into serious doubt.<br /><br />As for the claim that "justification by faith alone in Christ alone [is] the heart of the Christian gospel", well it seems then that the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century therefore marks the beginning of Christianity. Can we therefore consign the first 15 centuries of Christians, martyr and theologians to the dustbin?<br /><br />For me, the most amusing quote in the above is: '[the idea] that you can be a Christian just by being a “follower of Jesus” and by “living like Jesus” is not Christianity.' Excuse me while I go cut the rest of my New Testament out of my bible...Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-55595155670134943172008-04-30T09:28:00.002+12:002008-04-30T11:08:50.624+12:00AugustineI have recently been reading about Augustine (354-430AD). He wrote:<br />- Just over 100 Books<br />- Over 250 Letters<br />- Over 350 Sermons<br /><br />Western Latin theology of Augustine's time didn't have a particularly large number of influential theologians in the way that the Greek East at that time did. As a result, Augustine completely dominated the theological landscape of the period in the Western church and his writings were massively influential (the Greek East never read Augustine as they spoke a different language and no translations were made). Apparently virtually all theology in the Medieval period was done with reference to the writings of Augustine. Because he writings were so widely used, copies of 95% of them survive today.<br /><br />What is most fascinating to me, as someone interested in the development of Christian doctrine, is how substantially Augustine's own ideas changed throughout his life. Scholars of Augustine talk about the theological views of the "early Augustine" as compared to the "later Augustine". It's the same person, but during the course of 30 years of writing on theology, studying the bible, and debating with others, Augustine's views slowly and substantially changed.<br /><br />The theology of his earliest writings reflects the theology that he had been taught by other Christians. It matches the standard Christian doctrines of the pre-Augustinian period in virtually all respects. Most of the theology he held to thirty years later though was quite novel, having been drawn out from the bible and fleshed out by Augustine himself in the course of the various doctrinal arguments he got into. One of Augustine's works written at the very end of his life is titled "Retractions", and in that work Augustine surveys his previous books one by one and comments about how and in what ways he has since changed his mind and in what areas he would now disagree with his previous work.<br /><br />In the Medieval period through to the Reformation within Western Christianity, virtually all sides claimed Augustine as advocating their position and attempted to prove it by quoting from his works. Since Augustine's works were inconsistent, in many cases two opposing sides could both find ample support for their positions from Augustine's works.<br /><br />The amazing thing is, from the point of view of the history of doctrine, that Augustine managed to virtually single-handedly introduce so many novel ideas into Christian thought and make those ideas normative and shunt out much of what had before him been see as standard Christianity. Some examples:<br /><br />* Probably most famous was Augustine's creation of the doctrine of predestination. Prior to Augustine all Christian writers vigorously defended the free will of man as one of the central points of Christian doctrine and predestination was opposed as pagan. The later Augustine advocated double-predestination, and Christians ever since have debated over how to balance God's sovereignty with free will.<br /><br />* A related issue was Original Sin and the state of fallen man. Pre-Augustinian Christianity had taught that men were not guilty of Adam's sin and that after the fall they retained the image of God and the ability to do good. The later Augustine came to view humanity as a 'mass of sin', teaching a view later called Total Depravity, saying fallen humans were unable to do true good of their own accord. He also taught that people were born guilty before God due to their participation in Adam's sin.<br /><br />* The early Augustine, like the Christians before him, held a moral exemplar view of the atonement. The later Augustine denied that moral exemplar was sufficient and insisted on the addition of Christus Victor and Satisfaction/Penal Substitution (in a rather bizarre embryonic form).<br /><br />* The whole concept of "grace" as we are familiar with it today was fundamentally pioneered by Augustine. Previous Christians had typically seen grace as God's actions in the external world which influenced us by normal means. Augustine developed the concept of God's grace being internal - working inside of our heads to create psychological changes.<br /><br />Augustine's efforts contributed many other ideas to Western Christianity. Ideas such as Purgatory, the importance and power of Baptism for salvation, the precise shape of the Western view of the Trinity (which differs to the Eastern view slightly). Augustine's views of justification were massively influential for subsequent Western Christianity. The strategy of double-justification which Augustine developed for systematizing the place of faith and works in salvation (whereby the believer is saved by their faith at the moment of conversion and then produces works throughout their Christian life which justify them at the final judgment) became standard in Roman Catholicism, and provided a starting point to be developed by the Protestant Reformers.<br /><br />Scholars, of course, have fun in trying to outline and speculate about why it was that Augustine's views changed etc. It seems generally agreed by all that Augustine's idea of everyone being present in Adam at the time of his sin and thus everyone being guilty of it stemmed from a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 in the Latin bible he used. But is it coincidence that before converting to Christianity, Augustine was a Manichean who believed that "the nature of man can be corrupt to the point that his will is powerless to obey God's commands" (Chadwick, "The Early Church"), only to thirty years later start introducing that doctrine into Christianity?Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-50970919465153232152008-04-03T08:45:00.002+13:002008-04-03T09:20:44.459+13:00Adherance to Doctrinal StatementsWestminster Theological Seminary's recent suspension of Peter Enns for his book on understanding the nature of scripture that board perceived as violating the Westminster Confession intrigues me.<br /><br />It intrigues me because I just can't fathom the sanity of adhering to a creedal statement written in 1642. In 1642 they barely understood Koine Greek, biblical scholarship was only in its infancy, they had next to no understanding of the customs, practices and thinking of ancient world, and they had very few of the writings of the early church Fathers that we now have. For almost every conceivable reason there is evidence to think that people trying to interpret the bible in 1642 could have made serious errors. Indeed, the majority of scholars today would say they did.<br /><br />In that century, Isaac Newton published one of the greatest works in the history of science. Yet today his work is a historical curiosity, marking the beginning of serious scientific study. In a like manner the Reformation and confessions of faith resulting out of it mark the beginning of serious biblical scholarship. No sane person today would reprimand a quantum physicist for failure to adhere to Newton's theories. Likewise, the thought that someone might reprimand a biblical scholar for failure to adhere to a seventeenth century interpretation of the bible seems like a joke.<br /><br />It frustrates me that colleges actually exist who adhere to such doctrinal statements and see it as their duty to churn out students who believe such things. Such indoctrination results in a massive amount of bias, propaganda and apologetics contaminating scholarship. Modern interpretations and theories end up judged on their conformance with seventeenth century doctrinal statements! I have learned to steer clear of such biased 'scholarship'. Before reading any book I now attempt to ascertain whether it is written by a person who has been indoctrinated with seventeenth century confessional standards, because their bias so often completely undermines their scholarship and destroys any objective value in their work, as they always twist the evidence in such a way that it just so happens to end up proving the conclusions that they started with. In practice this seems to mean avoiding completely reading 'scholarship' produced by anyone in the Reformed or Presbyterian traditions, and careful filtering of Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran writings.<br /><br />I think the fact that I myself abandoned the doctrinal teachings of my childhood church as a result of serious biblical study has resulted in me having very little tolerance of people who fail to do likewise and who simply push the party line and doctrinal statements of whatever group happens to have indoctrinated them.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.com6