Carson, 2012. Chapter 8, “Ways Ahead: Ten Words”

Chapter 8, “Ways Ahead: Ten Words” (Loc. 1772)

In this chapter Carson makes ten suggestions. While some are pointed most directly at Christians there is hopefully broad applicability.

“1 Expose the New Tolerance’s Moral and Epistemological Bankruptcy” (Loc. 1775). The new tolerance allows for “mutually exclusive claims to truth.” This simply cannot work.

“2 Preserve a Place for Truth” (Loc. 1799). Truth claims are to be discussed and debated in a thoughtful and caring manner.

“3 Expose the New Tolerance’s Condescending Arrogance” (Loc. 1824).

“4 Insist That the New Tolerance Is Not ‘Progress’” (Loc. 1832). Carson observes that advances in the 20th century have been accompanied by many troubling situations.

“5 Distinguish between Empirical Diversity and the Inherent Goodness of All Diversity” (Loc. 1847).

“6 Challenge Secularism’s Ostensible Neutrality and Superiority” (Loc. 1865).

“7 Practice and Encourage Civility” (Loc. 1895).

“8 Evangelize” (Loc. 1899). This is a reminder that we stand up for truth claims. Christians who believe the Gospel show it to be important.

“9 Be Prepared to Suffer” (Loc. 1924).

“10 Delight in and Trust God” (Loc. 1940).

Here we reach the end of Carson’s book. It is a book of ideas and observations, not necessarily full of specific fixes for problems. Some may not see that there is any problem with altering the language and meaning of “tolerance.” Some may think Carson is barking up a tree that doesn’t exist. Regardless, he has made some very apt observations. Tolerance which is not tolerant is something other than tolerance. This is certainly an idea which is worthy of further study.

Pieper, 1968, vol. 2. Chapter 5, “The Communion of Attributes”

Chapter 5, “The Communion of Attributes”

The communication of attributes is a controversial doctrine. Many errors arise in relation to it. What do we mean by attributes when discussing this doctrine? “The term denotes not merely attributes in the strict sense, that is to say, what the divine and the human nature are essentially, as, for example, to be eternal and temporal, infinite and finite, and the like, but also everything that the natures do or suffer according to their respective essence” (Loc. 2582). Rather than viewing this as a completely separate doctrine, Pieper views it as a subset of the personal union, an explanation of how the human and divine are one.

This doctrine is discussed in three “genera” (Loc. 2625), though the divisions are recognized as somewhat arbitrary. Pieper will discuss these genera in more detail later but introduces them in brief terms as the genus idiomaticum (appropriation), the genus maiestaticum (communication of majesty), and the genus apotelesmaticum (communication of official acts).

Pieper reminds the reader (Loc. 2661) that Reformed theology has made the communication of attributes difficult because they do not wish to accept the impossibility of the divine and human natures in the one Christ. Yet Pieper observes that these doctrines are soundly Scriptural even though they are not fully explicable within human reason.

Walther, 1906. Chapter 4, “The Regular Call to the Pastoral Office”

Chapter 4, “The Regular Call to the Pastoral Office” pp. 16-20

Here Walther comments on Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession, “No one should teach or preach publicly in the church or administer the Sacraments without a regular call” (Walther, p. 16). Walther considers that the person obtains the ability to be a pastor then is called to the office.

The call is a matter of importance. It confirms in the pastor the validity of his mission being from God. It makes some assurance of spiritual oversight and doctrinal purity. It is important that the call not be issued to someone who is not adequately trained.

What of 1 Corinthians 14:30? The people making prophecies and judging them are the leaders, those who are called.

Walther continues on p. 19 to cite Martin Chemnitz. Chemnitz values the call as the way to set someone aside for Scriptural care, to identify those possessing spiritual gifts, to maintain order in the Church, and to establish ministers in confidence.

The visible call to ministry is a very positive thing as it protects congregation and pastor. Walther does not specify a process. He does make it clear that the congregation and the pastor both recognize it as a call.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 7, “Tolerance, Democracy, and Majoritarianism”

Chapter 7, “Tolerance, Democracy, and Majoritarianism” (Loc. 1556)

Carson investigates the idea of individual rights. Where do they derive from? How are they limited? Carson cites Robert George, who has observed organizations’ removal of religious statements from reports of historical documents. Carson then discusses the decision to remove Prison Fellowship from prisons in Iowa because of their theological stance combined with state funding. The list of situations in which individuals and groups are coerced to accept or endorse behaviors which are approved by the New Tolerance is impressive. Meanwhile, the New Tolerance looks more like “state-sponsored coercion” (Loc. 1611).

Carson then begins (Loc. 1623) a discussion of the demands to keep religious faith private, something which is impossible in the case of Christianity, as well as some other faiths. While secularism has claimed to protect religious freedom it is actually used more often to prohibit religious freedom. A very important societal protection is found in religion’s ability to speak from outside the confines of state power as, for instance, the civil rights movement.

Carson concludes with a smattering of observations adding up to a strong impression that the New Tolerance leads to tyranny, while the Old Tolerance allowed freedom and mutual responsibility.

Pieper, 1968, vol. 2 4 - The Communion of Natures (Loc. 2363)

4 - The Communion of Natures (Loc. 2363)

THE REASON FOR THE SPECIAL DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNION OF NATURES

The concept of the personal union of human and divine in Christ should include the communion of natures. Yet the discussion is made important for several reasons.

1. Calvinism rejects “actual communion of the divine nature with  the human” (Loc. 2378) in Christ. They make this claim based on the presupposition that a finite human cannot have communion with the infinite. They accept an assumption of the person of the Son but not the human nature.
2. Roman Catholic theology sides with Calvinism in this issue.

CRITIQUE OF THE DENIAL OF THE COMMUNION OF NATURES

Pieper asserts that the personal union requires a communion of natures. He points to Unitarians as the most consistent in this regard. The Reformed inconsistency is based on “their principle that the finite is not capable of the infinite” (Loc. 2424) and is addressed in the Apology of the Formula of Concord (1582).

THE COMMUNION OF NATURES MORE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED

“Scripture not merely states the fact of the communion of natures, but also describes it more fully as a permeation without confusion and conversion” (Loc. 2450). This is the historic understanding of Col. 2:9, John 1:14, and 1 John 1:13. In the end, Reformed and Lutheran theologians disagree on the humanity of Christ. Lutherans assert that the Son of God is, since the incarnation, present always and everywhere according to his human nature. The Reformed insist on locality after the incarnation.

Walther, 1906. Chapter 3, “The Sources of Pastoral Theology”

Chapter 3, “The Sources of Pastoral Theology” pp. 13-15

Walther highly recommends Luther’s works, “in which pastoral theological material is scattered everywhere” (p. 13). Yet above all the pastor must be immersed in Scripture, particular Paul’s pastoral epistles. At the same time, Walther suggests that 1 Cor. 12:7ff and 14:32 guide us to receive human writings as very helpful. Walther goes on with testimonies from Lutherans and others to the value of Luther’s writings and those which have a firm and enduring quality.

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.