Evangelicals and the Bible in the Middle Ages

MacKenzie, Cameron.  "Evangelicals and the Bible in the Middle Ages."  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  329-348.

What were the arguments for and against the Lollards and their support of Wycliffe and his movement to bring the Bible into a new English translation?  The Oxford Constitutions condemn not only the version of the Bible produced by Wycliffe and his followers, but they challenge the idea that it is wise to translate Scriptures into a different language.

It appears that the chief arguments from both sides were that the Bible contains the words of life, that it should be learned and believed, and that it reveals what we need for salvation.   However, the followers of Wycliffe argued that the Bible should be available in everybody's native language so that each individual could consider it from personal reading and judge for himself.  The argument advanced against making a translation into the vernacular is to protect from an individualization of interpretation, misinterpretation, and the view of salvation that is self-mediated rather than delivered through the Church as God's administrator of grace.  So we can see that the same arguments cut both ways in this dispute.  There was a second argument put forth, indicating that because of the inferiority of the English language and its limited ability to articulate important doctrines it was impossible to translate the Scripture adequately.

The followers of Wycliffe apparently moved to a very populist argument, basically saying that anyone who was a supporter of the Church would be acting out of greed for power, protecting himself rather than bringing the true Gospel to people.  Therefore salvation should take on this character of being mediated through the individual rather than through the Church.  Likewise, in pastors, piety was exalted above purity of doctrine or understanding of Scripture.  From this point of view, it would be appropriate to start a new movement, making the Scriptures as broadly available as possible in the vernacular, regardless of the room for misinterpretation.

The followers of the Church apparently stood with their traditional views and assumed they could stop any objections.

Obviously, the idea of the vernacular has won out.  What are the consequences?  Do we need to look any farther than the modern English paraphrases of the Bible which make serious doctrinal inquiry and understanding next to impossible?  How about the tendency of modern evangelicals to ordain themselves to ministry with little or no training but a commitment to piety?  Looking at it from about 600 years later, what do we think of the outcome?

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Origen and the Canon of Scripture

Gard, Daniel L.  "Origen and the Canon of Scripture."  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  313-327.

Often when Christians look for the earliest evidence of canonicity they look to Origen, as he made many statements about what was reliable and unreliable in the literature of the earliest Christians.  The difficulty, says Gard, is that Origen did not, in fact, provide us with a comprehensive list of what books were reliable.  He did compare Christian versions of the Old Testament with the Hebrew canon and generally assert that in discussions of faith, Christians should restrict themselves to those books which were accepted by the Jews.  However, especially in writings which came from the Christian period, Origen was indecisive at best.  At different times in his writing career he alternatively accepted and rejected 1 Clement, the Shepherd fo Hermas, and various other texts.

Origen did articulate a principle which has become important to us.  He and many others recognized Hebrews as part of Scripture though he recognized it was not written by Paul  He therefore managed to define apostolicity in writing of the New Testament as being consistent with the doctrine and teachings of the apostles.  Recognizing that Hebrews has a distinctive Pauline flavor, though we do not know who wrote it, it is nonetheless acceptable.  This view also relieves the burden that the author must be one of the Twelve or Paul.  Yet it defends the necessity of Scripture having one message, that message of Christ as delivered to and through the apostles.

This article has an interesting mixture of citations in Greek and in Latin, some translated, some not.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Johann Augustus Wilhelm Neander: Historical Objectivity and the "Religious" Element of Church History and the History of Doctrine

Muller, Richard A. "Johann Augustus Wilhelm Neander: Historical Objectivity and the 'Religious' Element of Church History and the History of Doctrine."  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  291-312.

Muller gives an intriguing introduction to the work and life of Neander.  Neander is called "the father of modern church history."  What gave him a title like that?  His approach to church history managed to combine a treatment of major themes of a particular time in history and a discussion of specific individuals during that time in history.  This made for a history which showed the variegations in doctrine and practice in any period of church history, while still tracking major themes and concepts.  This approach stood in stark contrast to other church historians of his time and before.  Another feature of Neander's work that Muller draws out is his insightful personalization of historical interpretation.  He tells why a development in the history of a doctrine has importance to the individual believer in Christ.  This also was not the tendency of his age.

The article makes me more interested in reading Neander's works and works about him.  Any opinions?

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Preparing to Cast Off!

YARR, CAP'N SALTY HERE.  SEEMS WE BE JUST ABOUT SHIPSHAPE AND READY TO CAST OFF.  STILL WAITING ON A FEW LAST MINUTE FIXES.  WE'LL BE UNSHIPPING SOME OF THE RUMMAGE FROM OUR HOLDS IN A MOVING SALE THIS WEEKEND.  WE'LL UNSHIP THE REST OF THE RUMMAGE TO A RUMMAGE SALE AT THE CHURCH THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND.  A BIT OF PAINT, A BIT OF VINYL, WE'RE ABOUT READY TO PUT THE HOUSE ON THE MARKET AND HEAD OUT TO SEA.

LOOKS LIKE INDIANA IS STILL OUR NEXT PORT OF CALL.  WHERE WILL IT TAKE US?  BEEN LOOKING INTO THE CCLE - CLASSICAL LUTHERAN EDUCATION AS WELL AS PASTORAL MINISTRY.

PRAY FER US!

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Disputatio: A Needed String to Theology's Bow?

Stephenson, John R. "Disputatio: A Needed String to Theology's Bow?"  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  277-289.

Put quite simply, in this brief article Stephenson points out the decline of theological rigor and disputation in recent years within Christianity.  While we seem willing to hammer out doctrinal stands within the boundaries of our own particular Christian community, when different groups of Christians get together they tend to articulate their points of view but then decide they can get along together regardless of the differences.  

Stephenson observes that it takes a particularly courageous theologian to hold the line on theological distinctives.   It is difficult but necessary to follow the pattern of our ancestors in Christ who would be specific about the disputes we have, would attack doctrines which were not biblical, and would strive for accuracy in biblical interpretation.  To do otherwise is to fall pray to some sort of wishy-washy theological mumbo-jumbo.  

Notice that we also see this watering down of discourse and disputation within political contexts.  Issues are less important than personalities.  Truth is less important than a cultural attitude.

Well, we wouldn't want to make anyone uncomfortable by observing that the ship is sinking, that we are in shark-infested waters hundreds of miles from land, that the water temperature will bring on hypothermia and death rather quickly, or that there are no lifeboats aboard.  Better mix up some margaritas instead.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

A Wedding Address

Heard on August 8, on the occasion of Lizzie and Justin's wedding. 

 
I am not sure what kind of sermon you wanted, girl friend. I am standing in front of Reverends from the Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran and Free Church.faith. Someone may be disappointed. I will try the "shotgun" approach. I hope at least one of them is satisfied. It didn't help for you to say in your thank you card that you are looking forward to hearing this sermon. the pressure is on. We worship a serious God. He is no-nonsense He is serious about His parties. When he throws one, he makes sure everything is perfect. The lamps are lit and full of oil, the correct garments are worn,the table is set, the wine is plentiful, and everyone there is : well , everyone there is undeserving. and there is joy. The Shepherd and the sheep, the lost coin, the Prodigal Son, all end in parties, and there is joy. As C.S. Lewis put it "Joy is the serious business of heaven." Did you ever notice how many parties in the New Testament signifying salvation are wedding parties? God is a serious God. We all know about the parables of Jesus as he taught. The parable of the sower, the weeds, the sheep and the goats, but what about those parables that were acted out? God is serious about his acted out parables These are the things God taught us as visionary or as actions of others that told us a story or taught us a lesson. Moses struck the rock in the desert twice and was denied the promised land until the transfiguration. God would strike the High Priest dead if the letter of his law was not followed on the precise day of atonement, He had to have the correct clothing, the correct bathing ritual, The sacrificial lamb had to be perfect. The scapegoat could never enter the camp again. When the wandering tribes of Israel camped the tent called the tabernacle where God dwelt was placed in the direct center of the camp. There was the sin of Achan, Joshua circling Jericho 7 times. The way the prophets acted toward Israel. And then of course, there is the the story of Hosea and his bride Gomer. Jesus himself did many acted out parables, such as the amazing circumstances of his birth,the fact that He pitched his tent or tabernacled with us or maybe, as the Cotton Patch Bible put it,He parked his mobile home next to mine, or better yet, as John phrased it with that amazing pronouncement "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." How about the raising of Lazarus, the feeding of the five thousand, the cursing of the fig tree, the stilling of the sea, the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, the walking on the water, the sacraments of the church? These were all acted out parables. However , he left one particular acted out parable unfinished. I think that acted out parable should be called the "Parable of Justin and Lizzie." This is the parable that is out there before the watching world. My wife once called me a model husband. To look that up in the dictionary you will see that a model is a small imitation of the real thing. That might be an insult to me, but it is an incredible thing when you consider the Apostle Paul's command that 'Husbands are to love your wives as Christ loved the church." Your relationship is a model of Christ's love for his people. You see, marriage has its roots in the dirt of creation. It isn't some kind of lofty ideal, or religious concept, or some romantic illusion. Marriage is grounded in the dust of our origin, our being male and female made in the image of God. Marriage is about sex and food and drink and house and home and bed and table and children and community. It embraces the fullness of who we are as human beings - the good, the bad, the ugly. Marriage is about sin and grace and forgiveness and faithfulness. Marriage is the picture or the model of the unconditional love of Christ for his people. You are a model of Christ's love when you chose one who is undeserving, or better yet when your mother thinks they are undeserving. You are a model of Christ's love when you give all you have to provide for your family. You are a model of Christ's love when you warm the car in the morning, make a midnight run to the store to buy a pacifier that was lost, make the coffee, clear the sink, take out the garbage, respect one another's rule on toothpaste and toilet paper. When you are ironing clothes for the uptempth time, changing that diaper, You are a model of Christ's love when at night and its been a very long and trying day, all of a sudden there is a back rub. You model Christ's love when you Lizzie take Justin, or Justin you take Lizzie and you love them without mercy or a severe mercy as C.S Lewis put it, speaking truth. You are a model of Christ's love when you make your intimacy so supreme with no holds barred. ( for you see, Christ knows no boundaries in his relationship to us) that is what we theologians call Grace. You are a model of Christ's love when you know your spouse doesn't merit forgiveness for that sin, any sin,the big ones, the small ones, or even the ones that stab you in the heart, but you seem to remember to forget them anyway. Just as He tells us , to paraphrase Jeremiah, " I will be their God and they will be my people and I will remember their sins no more". You are a model of Christ's love when the bills are due, tempers are high, fear is looming and yet you still rejoice in the fact that you have each other. And maybe that is all you have, but that is enough. You are a model when the romance cools a bit and you remember that Christ love is in that "He gave" . His love is not a feeling, but an action, an action of dying to self and giving to the other. You are a model when the gates of Hell assail and all you can do is stand, yet you stand together. God is a serious God. He is serious about you. He loves you (action) he forgives, but also forgets. God is a serious God God is serious about marraige. It is the fundamental parable of Christ passion. . He loves her to death on the cross. It's the picture of the Church's passion for Christ. The Church drops dead to her life and lives joined to her Groom, to Christ. The church is Christ's Bride, drawing her life from His wounded side as He slept in death on the cross. . It is a great mystery as Paul would say, it is a great thing hidden and now revealed, that husband and wife embracing one other are a sign of this passion of Christ and the Church. You too. In your married life together you are signs for the watching world of what the unconditional, passionate love of Christ for the world is all about. And once you've got Christ in the picture, I dare you . take a look through your Bibles and you'll see it all over the place. As one fellow put it, The sensuous Song of Solomon, which the rabbis kept in a brown paper wrapper until you were eighteen. Now there's the passion of the King for his Bride on their wedding day. How 'bout the prophet Isaiah who said in chapter 61 verse 10: : For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels....As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a briedgroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you. Then there is the wedding at Cana in Galilee, where Jesus did the first sign that revealed Him to be the creative/redemptive Word. There he changed 180 gallons of washing water into the finest wedding wine at a wedding party that was already three sheets to the wind. You see, God is serious about marriage. You have to understand, Your marraige is a cocktail hour to the great party. You are the pre show to the big show. Or to put it in concert terms, you are the warm up act or "Special Guest" to the starring act. What you see today and what we have witnessed is just a preview of the great picture at the end of the Bible . Lizzie, as you came down the isle you portrayed exactly what the Apostle John witnessed in that great scene . Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. This is where heaven is seen as a glorified city, risen Church , processing down the aisle like a bride, being wedded to her bridegroom Jesus and a marriage supper of food and drink that has no end. I recently heard a devotional by Ken Klause of the Lutheran Hour report the following story. "A week or so ago, when I was at the 92nd convention of the International Lutheran Laymen's League (the organization which sponsors these devotions), I came across an article in the Greensboro News & Record. The story told how Danielle Starr and Anthony Mohney were married for one whole day. For one day the couple became husband and wife. Then, on the second day, Anthony died of cancer. The story went on to tell how Anthony's hospice team had planned the wedding and how the businessmen of that wonderful North Carolina community had graciously given everything necessary for the couple to get hitched -- even the rings. The story spoke of how Danielle, who had been told Anthony would soon die of his illness, had assured him, saying, "I'd rather be married to you for one day, than not at all." My first reaction to that story was to cry. It was a beautiful human-interest story. My second reaction to the story was to ask a few questions: Why did they bother? Why did a jeweler give away some expensive rings? Why did the folks who catered the meal offer up their services? Why did the tux people not charge for the rental? Why bother to do any of this if you're sure one of the principals is going to die? These were questions that bothered me -- a lot. Turning from what this very special bride and groom had done, my thoughts went to the Savior. I asked many of the same questions about Him I had asked about the newlyweds. Why did Jesus come into this world? After all, He knew how things would end up. He knew a friend would betray Him; He knew He would be rejected; He knew He would be beaten, whipped, crowned with thorns, and nailed to the cross. Why did Jesus come if He knew He was going to die? The answer to why the bride and groom got married and to why Jesus entered this world is the same: they were in love. Danielle loved Anthony, and she was willing to suffer a great deal to be with him. The same is true for Jesus. So we could be with Him, Jesus was willing to live, suffer, and die for us. Now, because of what He did, we can be forgiven, saved, and with Him forever. Because of what Jesus did, the story of Danielle and Anthony isn't over. " Justin and Lizzie, I have a request for you . Years from now, when the wrinkles come, when the hair turns gray,- Lizzie, yours will turn from age, Justin, yours will come from teaching a wild eyed 16 year old girl how to drive a standard and parallel park. But when the children are grown and gone, maybe tending to their children and the only sounds you hear in your home are the past echoes of laughter on the walls; Then Justin, I want you to look to Lizzie and say "there is my bride".and Lizzie look to Justin and say, "there is my groom". You see it really isn't over. The best is still yet to come. As I said, God is serious about His parties. Father, thank you for the commitment of Justin to Lizzie. May it last for ever. When things get tough, remind them to run to you, when the times are good, remind them to run to you. Protect them and keep them. And as this world watches these two, may they witness the dance started before the foundation of the earth. And may the world always , always hear the laughter of the redeemed. In Christ's name, Amen 

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Confusions in Law & Gospel: A Study in Prolegomena

Feuerhahn, Ronald R.  "Confusions in Law & Gospel: A Study in Prolegomena."  All Theology Is Christology: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.  2000.  259-276.

Law and Gospel confused is possibly one of the most serious hindrances to a good understanding of Scripture.  We have seen this as an important error throughout Church history.  Feuerhahn lays it out in many of its different manifestations throughout history, detailing the salient features of each different misunderstanding.

There is an overall confusion between Law and Gospel.  We could observe that a small child could tell us that the Law is what we must do and the Gospel is what God does for us.  But it takes a very serious theologian to rightly and consistently distinguish the two.  We are bound in our sinful nature to understand and strive after Law.  We want to earn our way.  The Gospel is foolishness.

In the medieval period we see an emphasis on love arising.  The idea was that love was that which justifies.  The opponents to the Augsburg Confession said that "love is the keeping of the Law" (Tappert 127.147, cited in this article on p. 262).  But they also considered that the Law would bring justification.  In this guise, love is the Law, while faith is the Gospel.  The Roman church was asserting salvation by Law rather than Gospel.  They had fundamentally confused the two.

In the 16th Century we see confusion of Law and Gospel in Calvinism.  Feuerhahn asserts that Calvinism gives particular emphasis to Law, namely identifying it with sanctification, indicating that this is the appropriate starting point of theology.  For Luther, the starting point of theology is justification, identified with Gospel.  The Calvinist would see preaching of the Law as fundamental to our seeing our right role in society.  The Lutheran would see the preaching of the Gospel as fundamental to our seeing our right role in society.

Pietism arises rather quickly wherever a genuine grasp of the Gospel exists.  In pietism we typically see a confusion of justification and sanctification.  The heirs of the pietists - the Puritans, Methodists, and Pentecostals - shift from talking about the justification accomplished by Christ on the cross to the regeneration we experience as we believe.  In Pietism the two are separated, while historically they had always been considered synonymously.  This change results in a move to talking about an experiential regeneration which bears fruit, and that fruit ends up being justification.  Here again we have an example of being redeemed by the Law rather than the Gospel.

In the Enlightenment we see a confusion of authority.  This, like Pietism, continues to be a very common confusion.  The distinction drawn here is that of doctrine versus life.  The difficulty is frequently phrased in Latin terms.  On the one side there is an emphasis on the fides quae creditur - the "faith which is believed."  On the other side there is an emphasis on the fides quā creditur - the faith by which something is believed.  Historic Christianity has asserted that both a solid confession of faith must exist and that people need to have faith which believes on that confession.  The Enlightenment tended to make a dichotomy here.  This is where we get people saying that "doctrine divides."  When it is your own personal belief which is important, more important than the confession of faith which you and countless others hold, your salvation is ultimately dependent on your own works, your own understanding, your own concept of what it means to be a Christian.

In modern Ecumenism the same problem exists with fides quae and fides qua.  I find Feuerhahn's distinction between this and the enlightenment to be a bit unclear.  Yet he divides his survey to distinguish among the Enlightenment views, Ecumenical views, and a modern confusion between "external" and "internal" views of faith.  Yet it is not clear to me what the distinctions are which Feuerhahn considers important.

So what do you think?  Did he label it right?  

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com