Carson, 2012. Chapter 6, “And Still There Is Evil”

Chapter 6, “And Still There Is Evil” (Loc. 1426)

In this chapter Carson’s “aim is to show how reflecting on a variety of moral issues shines a little more light on the issues of tolerance and intolerance” (Loc. 1426). The new tolerance has some sort of truth vision and must decide in what ways that truth may be violated. There are certain conducts which are acceptable and some which are not.

Carson goes on to discuss the idea of evil. Within the new tolerance there are some things which are considered bad. But it is not acceptable to call something evil. That is a religious term which is apparently out of bounds.

Carson then discusses the fact that making a value judgment against homosexuality leads to a negative label, as does making a judgment against abortion.

He goes on to discuss points made by John Piper at a 2007 Ligonier conference when discussing relativism. The highly relativistic view of the New Tolerance judges all opposing views to be wrong. Without broadly agreed upon categories of right and wrong there is a lack of clarity in moral discussion.

Finally the New Tolerance leads to a fragmentation of society and responds with totalitarian vigor. This, Carson suggests, is not sustainable.

Pieper, 1968, vol. 2. “The personal Union and the Christological Theories of Modern Theology”

“The personal Union and the Christological Theories of Modern Theology” (Loc. 2113).

In this chapter Pieper summarizes modern Christological misrepresentations and outlines the motives behind them. Underlying it all, Pieper says, is the rejection of the inerrant and true Word of God, led, in Pieper’s view, by Schleiermacher.

Pieper chooses to speak in this context (Loc. 2136) because implicit in the modern theology is a view of Jesus as merely human. The denial of the two natures of Christ is thus necessary.

In Loc. 2136 Pieper observes that De Wette and Ritschl represent theologians who “do not consider Christ as saving men through His vicarious satisfaction, but through His arousing of moral, pious, intellectual feelings in men” (Loc. 2144).

Pieper also identifies theologians who consider themselves “conservative” and wish to find a “deeper understanding.” These he divides into two categories, kenoticists and advocates of autohypostatic theory.

“The kenoticists seek to obtain this conceivability by reducing the divine nature of the Son of God in His incarnation” (Loc. 2159). Among these Pieper lists Thomasius, Delitzsch, Kahnis, Luthardt, and Zoeckler. This view lowers Christ to the level of having to learn what it is to be human.

“To remove this intellectual difficulty, others have advanced to the autohypostatic theory. They refuse to accept the enhypostasy of the human nature of Christ, that is, its assumption into the Person of the Son of God, and hold that the Man Christ had a personality of His own” (Loc. 2173).

This view separates the personality of human and divine in Christ, some viewing that the natures grow together (Dorner) and some saying they remain distinct (Seeberg, Kirn).

Both views finally deny a Christ who is entirely divine and entirely human. We are left with a Christ who is a mere man, worked upon by God in a unique way. Yet there is none of the union found in Scripture.

Pieper discusses historical terms which are rejected by the modern theologians, such as the terms “person,” “nature,” and the like. As the terms are rejected, so may the person of Christ be rejected. Pieper continues at length detailing the importance and universality of the Lutheran Reformation’s view of the personal union of Christ.

Walther, 1906. Chapter 2, “The Acquisition of Pastoral Theology”

Chapter 2, “The Acquisition of Pastoral Theology” pp. 11-12

Walther refers us back to Luther’s axiom, “prayer, study, temptation make a theologian” (p. 11). We are shaped in our theology as we turn from our own minds and seek the mind of God as revealed in Scripture. We pray that the Lord will use His Word in us. We pray the Word itself. We find then many temptations and trials which drive us back into the Word. It is this repetitive cycle of oratio, meditatio, tentatio that shapes us as theologians.

Carson, 2102. Chapter 5, “The Church and Christian Truth Claims”

Chapter 5, “The Church and Christian Truth Claims” (Loc. 1077)

The Challenges

The Charge of Intolerance

There is a problem related to the new tolerance. Because it refuses to say some positions are wrong it can make a claim for neutrality. Yet this position is not neutral, as it condemns those who accept a position as correct. It is inconsistent because it would need to condemn itself or accept all views. Intelligent people can see this internal contradiction. This chapter deals with the truth claims which are not tolerated.

“Advocates of the new tolerance sacrifice wisdom and principle in support of just one supreme good: upholding their view of tolerance” (Loc. 1090). This comes in conflict with those who uphold a different value system. Carson says this conflict is most pronounced in dealing with religion, particularly Christianity. With its exclusive truth claims, Christianity does not require tolerance, it requires belief. At the same time, it refuses acceptance of contrary claims. Much of Carson’s analysis here is dependent on the work of Phil Miles, who analyzes Western culture through a lens of Japanese non-Enlightenment culture. He observes that in the West there are distinctions between reason and spirituality. These do not exist outside of Enlightenment thinking. In a non-Enlightenment culture, such as that of the Bible, it is moral law, appealed to by individuals, which protects the society from tyranny (Loc. 1132). Beginning at Loc. 1138 Carson deals with the myth of God’s tolerance. He observes that God has forbearance but that it is not infinite. He has rather acted to remove offense.

Inside the Church

The broader culture is currently pushing its agenda not only outside the church but inside it as well. Carson gives several examples of situations in which the Christian community is pressured to avoid judgment. Eventually religious claims are removed from discussion and all is cast in terms of a secular world. Christianity does make truth claims. Yet these claims lead believers to societal good. This is not to be viewed as intolerance.

Pieper, 1968, vol. 2 "3. The Personal Union"

3  The Personal Union

The human nature of Christ has been assumed into the person of God the Son. This is the personal union - one person despite a divine and a human nature. This is not union only in activity. It is a closer unity than that of Christ and his believers. God the Son is truly God. God is in Christ in such a way that Jesus, the human, is divine. Pieper discusses a number of metaphors often used for the two natures of Christ, showing that none can live up to the genuine unio personalis.

Was Jesus aware of this? In location 1924 Pieper asserts that Jesus knew he was both divine and human. This, however, is not widely accepted. “At all times men, without and within the pale of the Christian Church, have been looking for substitutes for the hypostatic union” (Loc. 1940). Pieper gives examples of attempts to replace this doctrine, all of which fall short of Scripture. His conclusion is that “The salvation of the world could be effected only through the theanthropic work of Christ, and that required a theanthropic Person” (Loc. 1960).

Pieper continues with an analysis of various substitute theories (Loc. 2008 ff).

First, “The union between God and man in Christ is not a nominal union” (2008). The name of God is simply symbolic.

Second, “It is not a union habitualis, relativa, signifying merely a close relationship” (Loc. 2015).

Third, “It is not a unio acidentalis, an external, accidental union” (Loc. 2023).

Fourth, “It is not a union sustentiva, consisting in the mere presence and sustaining power of God” (Loc. 2031).

Fifth, “It is not a unio naturalis. We speak of a natural union in the case of things which have a natural relationship to each other” (Loc. 2035).

Sixth, “It is not a unio essentialis or commixtiva.” (Loc. 2060).

Finally, “The personal union is not a unio per adoptionem” (Loc. 2101).

Walther, 1906. Chapter 1, "The Definition of Pastoral Theology"

Chapter 1, “The Definition of Pastoral Theology” pp. 8-10

Walther defines pastoral theology as “the God-given practical ability of the soul . . . by virtue of which a minister of the church is enabled to carry out all his functions . . . “ (p. 8). Walther prefers to speak of pastoral theology as an ability rather than as a doctrine. The purpose of pastoral theology, “as that of all theology, consists in leading the sinner to salvation through faith” (p. 9).

He views pastoral theology as something we receive from God. It is only by the Holy Spirit that we can gain this ability. Yet it comes through means, as we read the Scripture, pray, and strive to continue in right doctrine.

Walther's Pastoral Theology

Walther, C.F.W. Pastoral Theology Trans. and abridged by John M. Drickamer from the 5th edition, 1906. New Haven, MO: Lutheran News, 1995.

This book is a series of articles collected by C.F.W. Walther, originally written in 1865-71. The articles are typically quite short. Drickamer has abridged the articles and Walther’s comments, resulting in a book of 280 pages and 50 chapters.