Blog Tour: 9/20 - 9/26

Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Read more!

About Me

I recently discovered a blog called Fundamentally Changed which has fundamentally changed my view of the word "fundamentalist", and being called a "Fundamentalist". I am not sure the word (like "Evangelical") can be resurrected from what secular society has done to it, but at least I do not need to feel insulted anymore when someone calls me one.

Jason, one of the bloggers at Fundamentally Changed, noticed that I was beginning to link them in some of my stuff and put them on my reading list on my sideboard. He did something that really hasn't happened to me up to now (and is, in my opinion, really cool) - he sent me an email:

Read more!

How do Followers of Christ Know What to Follow?

I am not going to get into all the things, people, movements, cults, etc. that some followers of Christ follow - just how the plan is supposed to work (at least according to Christ).

We are to follow Christ. However, how do we know what to follow? This post was inspired by conversations at Street Prophets with some folks who are "red letter" Christians - focusing on the words of Christ Himself only - and other strains of folks who take their guidance in different ways.

This is the exchange that triggered this post:

Moi: Jesus made it pretty clear that the only judge was God; and the only true guide was the Holy Spirit resident in us.

Other: No . . . the true guide was his only begotten son that he sent here to save ourselves from ourselves. To point out the errors of our ways and to direct us to the path that the JUDGE wants us to follow. What judge here or in heaven will reward you if his instructions are not followed?

I was wrong: God isn't the judge, Jesus is actually. These are both persons of the same triune God - but it is the person of Jesus, sitting on the right hand of God, who will judge us and "the Nations". Technically, it is also Jesus who leads us - but how did He say that would be accomplished:

John 16:4 . . . “I did not tell you these things from the beginning because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 Instead your hearts are filled with sadness because I have said these things to you. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment – 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. 12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.

So, there are no easy "written in book" answers in life. Now, those that know me know that I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. They also know I believed it is the inspired Word of God - and that it is still valid today. However, as Paul pointed out,

1 Corinthians 2:9 But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. 14 The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.

It is the Spirit of God resident in us that gives us the "mind of Christ" so that we can understand what God wants us to understand. This is why it has never been effective to quote Bible verses to folks who do not have the Spirit of God to lead them - for them the truth of God is nonsense. It is effective for a follower of Christ to go to the Word of God often and deeply to see what the Spirit of God wants the follower to understand about the Will of God for their life.

Also, we know Jesus focused not on the actions we perform, but the heart behind those actions - the reasons we act. If our actions follow where the Holy Spirit leads us - then we glorify God. Those same actions, for other reasons, may not glorify God at all - but only our own reason, desires, etc. They may only indicate, as the Old Testament often said, that we "did what was right in our own eyes".

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureII. Canonization of the New Testament

Part I ended with the five key questions a book had to face to become part of the New Testament canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?


2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?


3. Did the book tell the truth about God?


4. Did the book come with the power of God?


5. Was the book accepted by the people of God?

Also mentioned there:

The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon.

Certain works are referred to as "from the Lord" or described, and used, as scripture along with the Old Testament. ( 1 Thess 5:27, 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 2 Peter 3:15-16 ). Indeed, the first combined Old Testament quote with something from the New is in

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," [Deut 25:4] and, "The worker deserves his pay." [cf. Luke 10:7]

Those five questions above played out over parts of four centuries as the canon developed, and was finally settled once and for all (sorta) in 367 AD. Breaking the period up into pretty arbitrary divisions:

First Century
the books are written and begin to be copied and disseminated

There are frequent exhortations in scripture for the community read the Apostolic [a key point in future canonization decisions] communications outloud when they meet.

In 95 AD Clement of Rome writes a Letter to the Corinthians where he shows familiarity with Matthew, Luke, Romans, Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and Ephesians

First half of 2nd century
as they become more widely known and cherished, they begin to be cited

The first three great church fathers - Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius - used the bulk of the material of the New Testament in a casual manner - authenticated scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In their writings, only Mark, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter are not clearly cited

The Epistles of Ignatius (c. AD 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters.

It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. AD 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this,

Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.

Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4)

Papias uses citations from Matthew and Mark and uses them in exposition.

The Gospel of Truth, a gnostic work probably written by Valentinius, treats the Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and Revelations as authoritaive

Marcion in his gnostic canon included Luke, and the letters of Paul (except the pastorals)

Justin Martyr places the Apostlic writings on a par with those of the Old Testament prophets. He freely used "it is written" in talking about the apostolic writings.

Second half of 2nd Century
held a recognized place alongside "scripture", and began to be translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries

Irenaeus - a student of Polycarp who was in turn a student of the Apostles themselves - quotes from almost the entire New Testament as authoritative

Tatian - a pupil of Justin Martyr's - writes a harmony of the four gospels showing their equal standing.

The Muratorian Canon cites the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, Jude, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation

Translations existed in languages from the east to the west of the church - only lacking 2 Peter.

Third Century
the collecting of the books into whole "New Testaments"; and the sifting of Christian literature for that purpose

Revelations was generally accepted in the west, but had variable acceptance in the east.

Hebrews was the reverse.

Indeed, those books with less than full support still occupy the end position in the Bible today: Hebrews - Revelations

Fourth Century
the church fathers stating that conclusions have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church

Eusebius, in his church history covers the status going into Nicea:

• universally agreed: four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews - with questions about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelations;


• admitted by majority: James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude.

Nicea was essentially a rubber-stamp on the Canon; and indeed it really wasn't entirely settled until later in the century - assuming you want to ignore Luther and Calvin's issues.

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureI. "Literalist"? Er, No - and Introduction

I got into a "tiff" with a guy I like a lot over at Street Prophets over the use of the word "literalist" or "literalism" when it comes to folks like me who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and that it has authority both as a spiritual guide and in all it asserts (even historically). I am in no way confused that Solomon was talking about real baby deer attached to the chest of his wife. I am also not confused that the bulk of the Gospel accounts is reportage:

Then turn to John. Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable nv vuz (13:30). I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach.

So, I get what is "literal" and what is "figurative" - and I understand scripture has both types of writings. However, the "literalist" label - as generally used - isn't about the understanding of literary types. The general conversation (not the one with Russell) goes like this:

Other person: "I am a Christian, but I do not believe [for example] that hell exists [or the resurrection or the Virgin birth or miracles in general] or "I am a Christian, and I think the foundation of Christ's teachings are the Beatitudes [but not the whole Sermon on the Mount] " or "I like the teachings of Jesus - but Paul screwed the whole thing up"

The "literalist": "Great, but didn't Christ mention hell more than anyone else in the Bible" or "Great, but Christ said it was the Great Commandment" or "What about the more difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount about judgement and hell, divorce, etc" or "Paul was accepted by the Body of Christ as both an apostle and a great teacher about Christ"

The Other person: "The Bible was written by men, living in a particular culture, and I just do not accept that God would [send someone to hell, do miracles, etc.]. You "literalists" just do not see the overall beauty and poetry of scripture because you are too concerned with facts - and we know the New Testiment is not historically accurate." or [the point of this post] "There are many other parts to Christian tradition than the Bible as canonized by Constantine in the 4th century"

For those that are personally attracted to the spiritual aspects of the Bible (and not whether it is "real" or not) -- I am in no way diminishing their love of scripture, or the road that led them to Christ. NOT IN THE LEAST. I am talking about folks who toss out - in doing that or otherwise - all the criticisms of the historicity, authorship, etc. of scripture coming from the anti-supernaturalist scholars of the 18th century and beyond (as if that stuff is "just proven"); and imply that anyone who believes that scripture was written by who the 1st and 2nd century church thought it was written by (and believe in the reported miracles by a real Christ and/or God) are hopeless rubes unable to grasp simple modern scholarship and science - hence the inaccurate (and pejorative) "literalist" label. Those criticisms, unproven (and indeed many proven false) undermine - intentionally or not - the authority of scripture; and can place folks who listen in a position to misunderstand the direct teachings of Christ.

I care about that for two reasons:

1. For those seeking to follow Christ: they end up trying to follow not THE Christ but their Christ - the Christ their affections and beliefs are most comfortable following and not the Savior - rich, deep and real - of scripture. It is not the "literalists" who limit God and Christ by demanding that others take the full breadth of revelation into account - "inconsistancies" and all - but those who wish to narrow the scope of God's power and Christ's message.
   
   Modern "scholarship" - taken to it's worst extreme - is the Jesus Seminar voting on what Jesus really said and what he didn't. We do not really get to pick and chose like that in my view; nor do we get to limit Christ to what our modern sensibilities find "reasonable".
   
   There is plenty of scriptural reason to believe that just any belief about Christ is not adequate - that right belief about Christ is important.



2. For those teaching such a Christ and such a view of scripture: they are placing themselves in the direct line of Christ's warning

   Matthew 18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come. 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.

That should do it for now on that ugly word "literalist"

* * * * *

I have talked a fair amount about the historicity of scripture as well as Biblical authorship, particularly of the pivotal work in this whole argument - the Gospel of John. I have not really outlined what I see as the process of canonization of the New Testament. I see two general views:

• that the canon of scripture was enforced on the Body of Christ from above by the hierarchy in order to drive competing (and possibly legitimate) theological views out of the church; and



• that the canon of scripture developed organically within the Body of Christ - including through those great early theological battles - and that the leadership of the church finally rubber-stamped that view and sealed the canon.

I believe there are some elements of both - but by far and away the second view is how the Canon developed. The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon. My ilk see canonized books - from reading the historical record - having had five questions to survive in order to become part of the canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? In the case of the New Testament, this meant Apostolic authorship
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? The primary Biblical purpose of miracles was to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God.
3. Did the book tell the truth about God?
4. Did the book come with the power of God? This refers to the ability to transform the lives touched by it. The presence of God's transforming power was an indication that God was behind it.
5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? Despite later discussions about canonization, when a book was recieved, collected, read and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was considered canonical.

In part II, I will examine how this played out in the New Testament canonization process.

Read more!

Weekly Faith Roundtable

[This has been crossposted from Street Prophets - where it was a joint contribution that was part of a weekly discussion of different faiths represented by folks who regularly post there]

This is the combined work of JCHFleetguy (Evangelical Christian), quarkstomper (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), and vesticular (Evangelical Christian). The final editing was done by JCHFleetguy.

Introduction

JCHFleetguy:

I think Evangelicals are one of the most diverse religious segments within Christianity - in certain ways. Within any given church that would consider itself part of this movement, what they believe and do is probably crystal clear - however there is huge diversity of doctrinal beliefs as a whole.

If you want to understand what I believe - ask me. If you want to understand Evangelicalism as a movement - study. I am hopefully going to give you the beginnings of that research project.

quarkstomper:

I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and I identify myself as a member of that church. In researching my answers to the questions, I found some points where I'm not exactly comfortable with my church's positions; but I believe in the doctrinal principles that led my church to arrive at those positions. Maybe that means I really belong in ELCA instead.

Nah. Lutherans are also stubborn.

vesticular:

It’s probably safe to say that most of the community, especially the long-time members, are familiar with Fleetguy’s beliefs, based on the sheer volume of conversation everyone has engaged in. To that I will add that I seldom find myself disagreeing with him on doctrinal positions.

It’s possible that I may lean more slightly toward affirming the five points of Calvinism, but I do so cautiously and with little certainty. Even that is based not on any extensive knowledge of the Scripture that the Arminians [JCHFleetguy: I would fall into the Arminian camp] and Calvinists have wrestled over—rather it is just based on my own subjective experiences. C.S. Lewis is my intellectual standard-bearer, so to speak, and he was not a Calvinist.

I know the previous paragraph probably bored everyone to tears, but I thought I’d piggyback on Uncle John to get the “What Doctrine I Hold” question out of the way if/until someone expresses more interest.

I. Where and when did we start?:

JCHFleetguy:

From "Defining Evangelicalism" [with a little structural revision]:

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today as we enter the 21st-century.

1. to see as "evangelical" all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
   • conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
   • activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
   • Biblicism [a word I wouldn't use], a particular regard for the Bible;
   • crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross


2. to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella-demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is.



3. as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.

For most non-Evangelicals reading this, it is the last group you consider to be "what Evangelicals are" - and more importantly, if you have a political orientation, it is probably more related to the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family (and their political arm - Family Research Council), or Sojourners, etc.

I would give some blended definition of #1 and #3. Number one is the closest to a theological definition of both Evangelicalism - and "theologically conservative" - and in my opinion is anchored right in the 1st century and pre-Nicene church. By that sense, we began at the Cross (or more accurately at Pentecost - which is when the followers of Christ was bathed in the spirit and became the Body of Christ).

Definition #3 really gives the only organizational anchor for Evangelicalism - and the only way to talk about its origins in any modern sense. From that: the split between the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists started in the mid-1900's - and exploded post-World War I. Evangelicalism really got going when the Scopes trial made Fundamentalists look foolish and they withdrew into the woodwork.

quarkstomper:

A 16th Century monk named Martin Luther was plagued by doubts about his own salvation and feelings of unworthiness before God. He found his answer in the writings of Paul, emphasizing salvation by Faith. But this doctrine was at odds with certain practices and teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably the selling of Indulgences. He criticized the Church, the Church pushed back and before you can say “excommunication” he was at the head of a theological revolt.

There had been other reform movements in the Middle Ages, most notably that of John Hus, but several factors helped Luther’s. For one thing, the invention of the printing press helped spread Luther’s ideas far beyond his native Saxony. For another, by Luther’s time German nationalism was beginning to take hold and the princes of the region had both the desire to gain some independence from Rome and the power to make it stick.

Other reformers arrived in Luther’s wake, some of whom Luther quarreled with as much as he quarreled with the Pope; and Christendom wasn’t reformed as much as it was shattered into dozens of different sects. In response, the Lutherans eventually compiled the Book of Concord, which set out the essential Lutheran teachings of doctrine.

Decades of bloody religious wars followed, resulting in a theological patchwork in which the official church of any given state, duchy or principality was determined by the religion of its ruler. It also resulted in the Enlightenment, which in many ways was a reaction against all religion.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod began, like many other groups, because some people were dissatisfied with the church in their home country and came to America to worship they way they wanted to. In this case, it was a group of German Lutherans in Saxony in the early 1800s that were unhappy with their state church. They felt that the church was becoming too influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and was bending towards non-Lutheran practices and teachings. So in 1847, a group of them came to America and settled in Perry County, Missouri. Under the leadership of C.F.W. Walther, they joined with other like-minded Lutherans to form “The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States” (later abbreviated to “Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod)

Many other American churches of the Nineteenth Century experienced a similar reaction against the Enlightenment and the series of documents known as The Fundamentals were written to express the core Christian beliefs they wanted to return to. The Lutherans already had their version of The Fundamentals : The Book of Concord .

The LCMS remained predominantly German until the First World War, when anti-German sentiment in America encouraged the church to switch to performing services in English. In the South Wisconsin District of the Synod, official business was still transacted in German as late as 1940.

In the mid-1970s the Synod underwent a crisis when Jacob Preus, the newly-elected Synod president, instituted a crackdown at its St. Louis seminary against teaching of “false doctrine”, specifically the historical-critical method of biblical scholarship and liberal theology. This resulted in a good chunk of the faculty and students walking out and establishing their own seminary: the “Concordia Seminary in Exile” or “Seminex”. Although Seminex lasted little more than a decade, the schism hardened the conservatism of an already conservative church and the more liberal theologians and pastors we lost eventually became a part of ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which was formed in 1988 from the mergers of the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. ELCA is now the largest Lutheran denomination in America. Not that we’re jealous. No, we’re not.

The commonality: the rejection of Enlightenment-inspired, antisupernaturalist biblical scholarship and the liberal theology that arose from it.


II. What are our basic tenets/dogma/creeds/etc?:

We all agree these things are central to both our beliefs and the beliefs of our churches:

• an orthodox Christology and emphasis on Christ's atoning work and bodily Resurrection;


• the belief that salvation is the result of God's grace through Christ rather than any human works;


• the authority and inspiration of Scripture, usually holding to the inerrancy of the original autographs [see "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"];


• an emphasis on biblical preaching and teaching; and


• an emphasis on evangelism and the importance of mission work.

quarkstomper:

• Lutherans confess the Triune God: the Father, Creator of all things; Jesus Christ the Son, who became human to walk among us, whose sufferings and death paid the ransom of sin for all people and whose resurrection opens the gate of life everlasting for all; and the Holy Spirit, who quickens faith in the hearts of people through God’s Word and the Sacraments.


• There are three core principles at the heart of Lutheran doctrine:
  
  
  • Sola Gratia - Grace Alone: The salvation and the blessings we receive from God are not due to any merit on our part but solely because of God’s undeserved love.
  
  
  • Sola Fide - Faith Alone: Christ did everything that was necessary to win our salvation. We don’t have to perform any additional actions to earn it. Faith in him is sufficient.
  
  
  • Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone: The Bible is God’s Word in which he reveals his Law and the Gospel of Salvation. It is the sole source of Christian teaching.
  
  
  • Oh yeah, we talk about that Luther guy a lot, but we emphasize those teachings of his that have grounding in the Scriptures.


• The central teachings of the Lutheran Church can be found in the Book of Concord, a compilation of creeds and doctrinal statements compiled shortly after Luther’s death to try to unify the various branches of Lutheranism. These are:
  
  
  • The Three Ecumenical Creeds: The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed
  
  
  • The Augsburg Confession and the Apology to (Defense of) the Augsburg Confession: intended to clarify the points of agreement between the Lutherans and the Catholic Church and to justify the points of disagreement
  
  
  • Luther’s Large and Small Catechism: Luther’s explanations of the core elements of Christian teaching: The Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed and the Sacraments. The Small Catechism is used to instruct the young in Lutheran teachings; the Large Catechism is an expanded version.
  
  
  • The Smalcald Articles: a document Luther wrote delineating Lutheran teachings for an ecumenical council of other Protestant groups
  
  
  • Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope: Because it just wouldn’t be Lutheran if we didn’t diss the Pope somewhere.
  
  
  • The Formulas of Concord: Restates and ties it all together.

JCHFleetguy:

• First, from quarkstomper's list
  
  
  • Trinity: check
  
  
  • The Solas: check . . . with a caveat. There is a division, reflected in this belief of my church

    We believe that some gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues and miraculous healings were temporary. We believe that speaking in tongues was never the common or necessary sign of the baptism nor of the filling of the Spirit, and that the deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection (Acts 4:8, 31; Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:8).

    on the ministry of the Holy Spirit that relates directly to "Scripture Alone". As my previous pastor pointed out, this standing away from the charismatic gifts of the spirit has led some to step away from the Spirit's ministry to the Body of Christ when it comes to scripture and revelation. I would re-word this:

    Scripture, as led by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, as checked against scripture.

    I am not sure even most Evangelicals would trust that phrasing.
  
  
  
  • Everything else, even the Creeds: not really. Not to say we do not believe in the content of the creeds - we just do not profess them.


• The other two Solas of the Reformation:
  
  
  • Sola Christus - Christ alone: Our sole mediator and intercessor before God.
  
  
  • Soli Deo gloria - to God alone the glory.


• an emphasis on the conversion experience, typically referred to as being "born again" or experiencing a "new birth". Both vesticular and myself know the dates of our "spiritual birthdays": his is May 11th , 2004 (he hadn't thought of it in those terms until I asked) and mine is today - April 9th, 1995



• So, what does a creedal statement look like for Evangelicalism of the third sort. So, my church's "short version":
  
  
  • Trinity: yep
  
  
  • Bible: inerrant
  
  
  • Man: By man, we mean male and female. Man is created in the image of God, which means that ALL persons have value. We were created innocent, but we have all sinned in Adam when he sinned at the Fall in the Garden of Eden. As such, we are naturally separated from God and need to be redeemed.
  
  
  • Salvation: Salvation is a free gift of God, offered by grace through the death of his only Son, Jesus Christ. Because man is fallen, we are unable to obtain salvation by our own merit. We believe that God first calls us to Himself, enabling us to respond in faith to Him. Our faith is in the risen Christ, who now lives in heaven with the Father.
  
  and the full expression. Note that the doctrinal statements reference no creeds - ancient or otherwise - and are intentionally rooted in scripture for their support.

III. Our view on other religions and on alternative viewpoints internal to Christianity:

The commonality is, that within Christianity itself, the Catholic Church still is the doctrinal opposite of conservative Protestant theology. That is interesting, since the Catholic church is equally conservative doctrinally - if not even more conservative. The short list of those differences:

• Hierarchal leadership - we have mostly congregational polities


• Position of the Pope


• Position of saints and Mary


• The usefulness of intercessors other than Christ


• Indeed, any of the five Solas are aimed at the Catholic Church

Outside of Christianity, Sola Christus - Christ alone - is a tough nut to crack. We all think he is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. C.S. Lewis softened this

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

as have the Catholics - a doctrine I can also follow - but we are thinking that, whoever Christ chooses to let into Heaven, He will indeed act as gatekeeper for everyone. However, we cannot in good conscience affirm to someone that their "alternate road to God" is going to bring them to a position of being "saved through Christ". We know what has been revealed to us as a sure way - everybody else is taking their chances. Oh, and we all believe both Heaven and Hell exist.

Quarkstomper:

They’re wrong and we’re right. That isn’t very helpful, is it.

We recognize other denominations that confess the Trinitarian Creeds as fellow Christians, although we may differ in other points of doctrine. Some of these points are:

• Baptism: Like other Lutheran churches, the LCMS follows the traditional practice of infant baptism. We cite a few proof passages from Scripture to justify this, but I think the real reason ties into our view of Justification. Faith is kindled by the Holy Spirit and is not dependent upon anything that we ourselves do; therefore it is not necessary for a person to make a conscious Decision for Jesus before he can experience the benefits of the Holy Spirit.
  
  Or maybe we kept the practice because the Catholic Church accused Luther of being a heretical Anabaptist and Luther said “No, I’m not!”



• The Lord’s Supper: We practice what is called Close Communion; (sometimes referred to as “Closed Communion”); meaning that we limit the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to those who share the same beliefs about it that we do. Which excludes practically everybody. But Lutheran understanding of Holy Communion differs from both Roman Catholic Doctrine and most mainline Protestant denominations. Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Sacrament are actually transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and the view that the Sacrament actually re-enacts Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; he also rejected the view of Zwingli and the Swiss reformers that the bread and the wine of Communion only symbolize the Body and Blood. Luther taught that “Bread is bread”, but that the communicant also receives the True Body and Blood “in, with, and under” the physical bread and wine of the Sacrament.
  
  LCMS goes further and excludes from Communion even other Lutheran churches if they do not follow our strict view of Close Communion. That’s the official policy, but I’ve never been in a church where visitors were required to state their views of the Sacrament before they were permitted to come to the altar. In every church I’ve been in, if a person comes to the Lord’s Table desiring the Sacrament, he gets it.



• Justification by Faith: Justification by Faith is a biggie. Not too long ago, the Catholic Church and several Lutheran Churches signed a joint statement of agreement on the subject of Justification that was hailed as some as a breakthrough between the two churches. The LCMS refused to sign the statement, on the grounds that the document never actually defined what the Catholics mean by Justification, therefore the agreement is meaningless. (And if you ask, no, I can’t give a good definition of Justification either).
  
  What it comes down to is that Salvation is not something we earn by saying enough Hail Mary’s or by Deciding to Let Christ into Our Life; rather it is a gift, freely given by God without any merit or worthiness on our part. This was important to Luther because he was acutely aware of his own unworthiness and struggled long and hard with feelings of guilt and despair.
  
  Our emphasis on Grace, that is, Undeserved Love, makes us suspicious of anything that smells like “Works Righteousness”, the doctrine that we have to do something before we can achieve Salvation. (Once in college I went ‘round and ‘round with an earnest Born Again on this issue; he kept talking about Letting Jesus into One’s Heart and my Lutheran instincts kept saying “Works Righteousness!”)



• Doctrinal conformity: The LCMS has a high regard for conformity. The word “synod” means “walking together” and the whole purpose of the Formula of Concord was to be a formal statement of what we all agree on; so it’s generally assumed that within our church body everybody’s going to be on the same page, doctrinally speaking. The church holds the power to excommunicate members who stray from orthodoxy, but stresses that this should be a rare action used as a last resort. And if a person differs with the church teaching that much, he generally quits on his own.
  
  The Synod insists that its pastors, and the teaching staff of its seminaries, subscribe to the church’s doctrines. (This insistence, as I mentioned, is what led to the Seminex split). Things are a little more relaxed at the parish level. We have a congregational rather than an episcopal structure, meaning that local churches are run by the congregations themselves rather than by a hierarchy of bishops. This isn’t a doctrinal thing; it’s just The Way We’ve Always Done It. The pastor is not the ruler of the congregation, but an employee hired to preach and perform other pastoral duties. To a certain extent this dilutes the Synod’s power to enforce Doctrinal Purity on its members, relying instead on deference to the pastor on matters spiritual and the inertia of tradition.
  
  I was once a member of a church whose pastor supported the idea of women in the clergy, contrary to official LCMS position. He retired about the same time as we joined, so I don’t know how outspoken he was on this subject or if he ever got into trouble because of it. That congregation was a fairly liberal one, for an LCMS church, so that might have had something to do with it.

JCHFleetguy:

Outside the general things above, there is not much more for me to say. There are some disagreements in this section between myself and Quarkstomper. I understand the idea that the Holy Spirit can inhabit who He wills to inhabit regardless of our decision, but infant baptism just doesn't cut it for my herd of ilk. Even then, that is a parental decision/action or a church decision/action - especially since there is no sign of a changed life in an infant. That idea of that the moment of rebirth will be an inward change that brings outward change is too central to us. Indeed, the conversion story, or testimony, where one shows the way they have changed in Christ are foundational. We have commitment ceremonies where the parents commit to raising their children in a Godly way. We do not see the "decision for Christ" as our action:

We believe that God first calls us to Himself, enabling us to respond in faith to Him.

Indeed, no sacrament imbues life - none is a "means of grace":

no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation,

Communion as well is simply, as Christ said, something we do in remembrance of Him until He comes again

IV. A few general social or political issues considered important by us and why?:

To deal with the social conservative hot buttons, all of our churches are pro-life. None of our churches would marry a gay couple; and we believe homosexuality is a sin. From our general practice at Street Prophets, it is clear that we all agree with this statement:

We should always approach judgment and/or condemnation of people based on scripture with "fear and trembling" - or better yet just leave this job to God. We think the wisest thing for Christians to do about homosexuality is to love the sinner; and hate the sin - but keep their mouth shut about the second part in most cases.

and this from C.S. Lewis:

The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

None of us are opposed to at least some form of state recognition of some kind of gay marriage and/or civil union, and we do not think the way to end abortion is by making it illegal. Our churchs of attendance do not take positions on what secular society should do on those issues; and, most likely, if they did would not agree with us as individuals.

quarkstomper:

When the LCMS was first formed, it declined to support the Abolitionists on the issue of Slavery because the Bible did not give a clear command, pro or con, on the matter. (Those of us who compare Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision might want to keep that in mind). Generally speaking, the LCMS does not make official doctrinal statements about political issues.

Most Lutheran Churches, especially in the LCMS, are Pro-Life. The LCMS’s official position condemns abortion, but recognizes that there are cases where it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Official policy permits forms of birth control that do not prevent the implantation of fertilized ova, (IUDs are recognized as a grey area), but prefers they be used by married couples who are already “fruitful” and admonishes against using birth control as an excuse for indiscriminate sex.

On the subject of war, the LCMS subscribes to the Just War Doctrine established by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Although a lot of us are politically conservative and have backed the Bush war, the LCMS has no official position as to whether the Iraq Invasion and Occupation meets the criteria for a Just War.

The LCMS officially endorses Creationism, which is not surprising given our emphasis on the infallibility of Scripture; but does not require acceptance of Creationism as a requirement for membership.

Like many other churches, the LCMS puts a lot of emphasis on social ministry like schools, counseling programs, and poverty and disaster relief, often working with other Lutheran churches. This isn’t preached from the pulpit, though, as much as it is performed through auxiliary organizations such as the LWML, the Lutheran Layman’s League and Lutheran World Relief.

JCHFleetguy:

From "Defining Evangelicals":

During most of the 20th-century, American evangelicalism as a movement was generally reticent about politics because its sights were focused on what seemed more important tasks: evangelism, missions, and nurturing the faithful. All that seemed to change, however, in the 1970s when evangelicals "re-entered" the national spotlight with the rise of Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, a devout Southern Baptist layman who unabashedly claimed to be "born again." But the most visible aspect of this new political sensibility was the appearance of right-wing organizations like the Moral Majority and Concerned Women for America. This new "Religious Right" was credited with playing a major role in the "Reagan Revolution" of 1980 (and the ironic ouster of the evangelical President Carter, for the much-less obviously pious Reagan). In retrospect, it now seems clear that the part these organizations played in this outcome was not as great as either the news media or conservative evangelicals once believed. Unarguably, however, there was a new evangelical interest in political participation, which subsequently gave birth to a new generation of "Religious Right" organizations, such as the Christian Coalition.

The reasons for this resurgence are many, including: a natural desire to have a positive impact on culture and society (a subtle indication, perhaps, of the decline of some types of evangelical prophetic interpretations that emphasized an imminent Second Coming); concern over abortion and changing sexual mores in society; and dissatisfaction with the content, direction and power of the mass media and popular culture. However, what seems to have been the single overarching factor has been the post-WWII expansion of the Federal Government into areas and responsibilities that were previously the domain of the state and local government, the individual, the family, and the church. Yet, it must be made clear that there is no monolithic consensus among evangelicals on politics, any more than there is on theological matters. While the movement is conservative in many regards, there are many evangelicals who would identify their political orientation as liberal and some, like the Sojourners community in Washington D.C., which are leftist in nature. In terms of party affiliation, the movement has been traditionally perceived as Republican. This impression, however, reflects a bias that centers on the Northern, midwestern evangelicals of the NAE "card-carrying" variety. When the huge numbers of Southern white and black evangelicals are factored in, it is probably more accurate to say that in the years before 1970 the "average" evangelical was more likely to be a Democrat. With the defection of large numbers of white Southerners to the Republicans in recent decades, the political make-up of evangelicalism has changed. Today the overall political tenor of the movement could be described as moderately conservative and predominantly Republican

Lately, of course, committees organized by the National Association of Evangelicals have been involved in environmental work and come out strongly against the use of torture by the US government. Also, it seems to be theologically conservative Christians in the forefront of the efforts to end the genocide in Darfur; and the international trafficking in slaves - the vast majority of which are children and women pressed into sexual bondage. Willow Creek Association and folks affiliated with Rick Warren have been very active recently in working on the AIDS epidemic and poverty in Africa.

My own churches have had strong social ministries: missions, the poor, community service, etc. My last church continues sending work crews, and providing money, to the Katrina area. They have not been political from the pulpit; and there has been the availability of politically-conservative voters' guides in the lobby. The churches have not been involved in anti-abortion demonstrations (although I know members probably are); and the church has supported positive organizations like Pregnancy Resource Centers.

V. What do you most like and most want to change?

Quarkstomper:

Most of all, I like the music. Unlike some of the Swiss reformers who felt that music in the church distracted from the Word of God, Luther loved music and considered it, along with flinging inkpots and the occasional fart, to be the best way to drive out the Devil. Luther left us a singing church and we are richer for it. (Oh, and J.S. Bach had a bit to do with it too).

As for what I’d change, I think I’d most like to moderate our knee-jerk antipathy towards ecumenicalism. I don’t think we should ignore the doctrinal differences we have with other denominations, but at the same time neither should we forget what we have in common, nor should we avoid opportunities to join with our fellow Christians from other parts of the Body of Christ.

I also wish we could be more flexible on gender issues. This is largely why my wife doesn’t go to church anymore. On the whole, I think our emphasis on the Bible as the true and faithful Word of God is one of our strengths, but our strict interpretation of certain verses about the role of women and about homosexuality clash with the greater message of the Gospel. I don’t know how this contradiction can be reconciled, but I want to believe it must be possible.

JCHFleetguy:

The big one is epitomized by this quote from A.W. Tozer from The Pursuit of God:

Current evangelicalism has (to change the figure) laid the altar and divided the sacrifice into parts, but now seems satisfied to count the stones and rearrange the pieces with never a care that there is not a sign of fire upon the top of lofty Carmel. [See 1 Kings 18 for the allusions.-ccp] But God be thanked that there are a few who care. They are those who, while they love the altar and delight in the sacrifice, are yet unable to reconcile themselves to the continued absence of fire. They desire God above all. They are athirst to taste for themselves the `piercing sweetness' of the love of Christ about Whom all the holy prophets did write and the psalmists did sing.
There is today no lack of Bible teachers to set forth correctly the principles of the doctrines of Christ, but too many of these seem satisfied to teach the fundamentals of the faith year after year, strangely unaware that there is in their ministry no manifest Presence, nor anything unusual in their personal lives.

All the little ones flow from there.

Read more!

Applying the Principles, Part II

[Part seven in the Scripture and History series]

Picking up where I left off in "Applying the Principles, Part I", I am outlinging Greg Herrick's application of the principles of historical criticism to the resurrection narratives. Again, you must read the entire linked linked article for the full argument.

III. The tomb was found empty three days later:

1. Earliest tradition: Paul believed in the empty tomb:
   • "He was raised" - ἐγείρω - in 1 Corinthians 15:4.
   • It was an early tradition Paul received before he wrote about it in 37 - 40AD.
   • Paul would not preach so boldly if he did not believe in the empty tomb


2. Multiple attestations: The empty tomb tradition is found in:
   • all four Gospels
   • three of the Gospel strata (i.e. Mark, "M" and John).


3. Dissimilarity:
   • is not overlaid with theology for apologetic purposes.
   • all the Gospel writers use the expression "first day of the week." While the early preaching referred to the "third day"
   
   This makes it dissimilar to the preaching of the early church and therefore unlikely that the early church invented it.



4. Embarrassment: women were witnesses to the empty tomb while the disciples were hiding in fear.



5. Semitisms: Matthew mentioning the "angel of the Lord" and Luke's "bowed their faces to the ground".



6. Divergent traditions: the different number of angels and the different number of women in the different traditions has been pointed to as a reason to doubt their authenticity.
   • that they differ points to the story not being crafted by the early church. If that was the case they should be uniform
   • as to the reliability of the witnesses themselves, it was not unusual for different writers to focus on the participants they wished and ignore others that were there
   
   There is no need to postulate other competing traditions.



7. from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, in the development of their attack on the apostles, they did not deny that the tomb was empty. Besides, the religious leaders could have put an end to the whole mess, if they could have produced a body. No such evidence was ever presented according to our sources.

Herrick - "From the preceding evidence it is clear that the tradition of the empty tomb passes the historiographical tests of: 1) multiple attestation; 2)dissimilarity; 3) tendencies of the developing tradition; 4) Semitisms and 5)embarrassment. Therefore, a belief in the empty tomb is reasonable historically speaking. It bears all the marks of being early, and not a later creation of the church. It is to be regarded as authentic."

IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.

According to [Lane] Craig there are essentially four lines of evidence one can adduce in support of the historical reliability of the resurrection appearances: 1) The Apostle Paul's testimony; 2) the genuine character of particular resurrection appearances, 3) the evidence for the general trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and 4) the fact that the appearances were of Jesus' resurrected body. Since we have already discussed #3 and #4 . . . we will concentrate on the #1 and #2.

1. Paul's Testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

   It is generally believed that the earlier a tradition is, the more likely it is to be authentic. This, of course, is a major idea behind the criteria of authenticity and form criticism . . . We maintain that the "witnesses" of 15: 5-8 are a part of that early tradition. There was not enough time to develop a legend in this regard, for the tradition here can probably be dated before A.D. 40 and some argue before A.D. 37 . . . The Corinthians could have checked it out, and yet there is no reference in our sources to the Corinthians . . . denying the resurrection.

2. The Historical Veracity of Resurrection Appearances, and Other Phenomena
   • Cause/effect or Correlation:
     • James: The fact James was doubtful of Jesus' identity during his life and that he later became a pillar and apostle in the church requires a sufficient cause. The only reasonable explanation is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead and appear to him, just as tradition says.
     • Paul:

       . . . it is even harder to account for Saul . . . Did Paul suddenly feel remorse for his actions? Probably not. This might lead him to desist from his attacks on the church, but it cannot account for his faith in Jesus as Messiah. Did he just realize from his background that Jesus fits the Messianic bill, so to speak? This is unlikely, since the bodily resurrection of an isolated individual is not found in the Judaism of Paul's day. There was only the general resurrection of all people at the end (criterion of Palestinian environment [context and expectation]). And, the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was probably foreign to Paul . . . He even goes so far as to teach Jewish/Gentile equality in God's plan. . . . Paul suffered greatly as a result of his faith in Christ . . . This is only reasonably accounted for on the basis of his seeing the resurrected Jesus

     • The emergence and growth of the church in Jerusalem and around the known world at that time is difficult to explain on the basis of naturalistic causes. Fear of the religious and political authorities would have squelched the movement
     • Early church treatment of sin:

       They did not tolerate it . . . This is not exactly the way a movement goes about the process of attracting followers. There was belief in Jesus' resurrection and only such a belief would cause sane people to become a part of the church . . . we ought to consider Paul's ethics which he enjoined on the churches in the name of the risen Lord. It is an incredibly demanding ethic and not very easy to live out. It is difficult to believe that people would submit to this without a sufficient reason. The resurrection of Christ provides the a priori reason to move toward a lifestyle like Paul outlines in his letters and also offers the hope required to fulfill that ethic.

   • Embarrassment: In first century Judaism, since the claim of women witnesses would not carry much weight, it is likely that this tradition is true. It does nothing to help their cause in promoting Jesus as risen from the dead. The fact that Paul leaves the women out in his list of witnesses confirms this interpretation.

As I said in a comment at Street Prophets, it is not my intent in this series to convince anyone of anything - other than that believing in the physically risen Christ from the Gospel narratives is not historiographically irrational or insupportable.

That is unless one denies the possibility of the supernatural. That, however, has nothing to do with the evidence - that is about what you are willing to believe.

Read more!

Applying the Principles, Part I

[Part six in the Scripture and History series]

I have been outlining Greg Herrick's "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives" the last few posts in the series. First, I should say that here Herrick is only dealing with one possible naturalistic explanation of the Resurrection accounts:

From this brief discussion we contend that Jesus' resurrection, spoken of in the Gospels (and indeed the entire New Testament) is a bodily resurrection - the corporeal theory.

The brief discussion in the paper also mentioned five (5) other explanations:

1. the political theory,
2. the swoon theory,
3. the mythical theory,
4. the subjective vision theory,
5. the objective vision theory

He dismisses the first two without discussion, but he examines why the thinks the next three fail to the corporeal theory.

You will have to read the linked article for those reasons. He moves on to examine the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the corporeal Resurrection of Jesus. The last two posts looked at Herrick's view of some common "criteria of authenticity" to measure that by; and

"We turn now to an application of those criteria to the resurrection narratives, including the material on the death of Jesus, his burial, the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and the disciples' belief in the resurrection."

His introduction to the section:

No one saw the resurrection of Jesus. All that was seen was the resurrected Jesus. If, then, a resurrection took place, it must be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty, historiographically speaking, that Jesus actually died and then was seen at some later time alive and in bodily form. A brief sketch of the Gospel testimony runs something like this: 1) Jesus died; 2) was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb; 3) the tomb was found empty three days later and 4) Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection . . . This section seeks to analyze these various ideas according to the details of the Gospels and the criteria of authenticity.

I am only going to outline that application - again you have to read the linked article if you want to capture his entire argument, and that of those he argues against.

I. Jesus died

the criterion of multiple attestation, coherence, and multiple forms demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion. That crucifixion was indeed practiced by the Romans . . . is confirmed by Josephus, [satisfying] the criterion of Palestinian environment.

II. He was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb

• Multiple Attestation:
  • The earliest tradition: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - the word θάπτω (thaptō) occurs 10 other times in the Gospels and Acts . . . It always refers to the physical burial of a dead person.
  • The Gospels all confirm this testimony


• Developing tradition or dissimilarity:
  • The earliness of the 1 Corinthians tradition argues against the development of legend. Some of those eyewitnesses were indeed women [also criterion of embarrassment] who played a role in the early church in which the traditions developed
  • The tradition of his burial is not surrounded by adornment and embellishing . . . The later church cannot be read back into the description of Jesus' burial.


• Divergent tradition: all the Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea and Luke tells us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Given the fact that all the writers implicate the religious leaders in Jesus' death . . . Such a unanimously spoken of tradition would probably not survive due the presence of eyewitnesses, unless, of course, it were true.



• Palestinian environment:
  • the tomb meets with archaeological discoveries
  • the new tomb coheres with the Jews not wanting to pollute other family members interred there
  • Jesus' body would not have been allowed to remain on the cross until the next day, lest the corpse defile the land
  • since he died around the sixth hour, Joseph probably had time to accomplish the burial before nightfall and the beginning of the Sabbath

Next post, the real issues:

• III. The tomb was found empty three days later
• IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.

Read more!

Principles of Historical Criticism, Part II

[Part five in the Scripture and History series]

This time, we begin to look at what Greg Herrick calls "A Better Approach". Herrick examines several "Criteria of Authenticity" that have been used by critics such as the Jesus Seminar to examine the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Before examining the criteria he makes some general points:

1. The criteria are not about "proof" - "intent of the criteria is to judge the probability of the authenticity of a certain saying or deed"



2. "the criteria are to be used together and from a perspective that maintains that the accounts are trustworthy until the contrary has been reasonably demonstrated.". This tends to be supported by:
   • the presence of eyewitnesses;
   • the existence of a church center in Jerusalem to oversee the guarding and disseminating of the traditions;
   • the generally high view the church had for its traditions
   • the faithfulness of the church in transmitting some of Jesus' more difficult sayings
   • the problems of the early church as seen in the epistles are not specifically found in the Gospels

The criteria are [the block quotes are Herrick's comments/adjustments/etc of the criteria]:

• The Criterion of Dissimilarity: affirms that a saying or deed may be regarded as authentic if it cannot be shown to go back to similar phenomena in ancient Judaism or the church

  This criterion has some strength in that it can validate a tradition, but it cannot invalidate a saying necessarily. That is, if a saying cannot be located in Judaism or the early church then it is reasonable to conclude that it goes back to the creative mind of Jesus. However, Jesus was a man who lived in the Jewish culture and therefore, it is unfair to rule as inauthentic a saying simply because it can be found in Judaism . . . This criterion is helpful for determining what is unique to Jesus not what is characteristic of him.

• The Criterion of Multiple Attestation: any motif may be regarded as authentic if the words upon which it rests are found in all, or most, of the sources which stand behind the synoptic Gospels

  This particular criterion presupposes a solution to the synoptic problem and to the degree that that is tentative, so is this dictum . . . Also, there is nothing that necessitates a tradition being inauthentic simply because it is found in only one source. Other principles such as internal improbability and contradiction with other traditions must take greater precedent in determining this.

• The The Criterion of Semitisms: any presence of Aramaic linguistic phenomena argues for the primitiveness of the tradition and the more primitive a tradition is the more likely that it actually came from Jesus himself.

  The principle assumes, at least at some level, that the early Christians did not write or speak Aramaic and did not add such activity to the gospel traditions. But isn't this the whole reason for the "criteria"—to determine which sayings and deeds are really of Jesus? . . . The principle has therefore limited usefulness, but when combined with other criteria may help to determine the actual words of Jesus. This criterion must also take into account: 1) the influence of the LXX upon the writers of the New Testament; 2) that there remains some question as to whether the Greek of the Gospels can be accurately translated back into Aramaic; and 3) the probability that Jesus himself spoke Greek on occasion

• The Criterion of Divergent Traditions: suggests that when a particular tradition differs somewhat from what appears to be the author's general perspective it may be regarded as authentic

  This criterion does help to establish difficult sayings such as Mark 13:32, the theology of which does not seem to agree with Mark 1:1, wherein Mark seems to portray a fairly high Christology. But, the principle may require of us knowledge of the early church which we do not really possess and can tend to individualize the NT writers too much. As regards this last point, we must exercise caution before we set about to say that two traditions are in contradiction. Our knowledge of the situation in the early church may really not be adequate to the task.

• The Criterion of Primitive Eschatology: If a particular saying evinces a primitive/imminent eschatological outlook, it may be regarded as authentic

  . . . there seems to be no a priori reason to reject the fact that Jesus shifted his eschatological focus during his ministry, especially in the light of the growing rejection of his person by the Jews. Perhaps this is the case in Matthew.

• The Criterion of Palestinian Environment: affirms that if a saying or deed appears to have a Hellenistic origin, it cannot be from Jesus, but is a later creation of the church. On the other hand, any saying or deed, be it religious, political, social or otherwise, must reflect Palestinian provenance to be considered authentic.

  Some have argued against the authenticity of Mark 10:11-12 on this basis, since a wife divorcing her husband is unheard of in Judaism. Yet, as Stein points out, there is a realistic Sitz im Leben in Jesus' ministry for just such a saying, namely, the case of Herod and Herodias. This criterion might play a greater role in the case of customs, religious practices, social phenomena, etc. in the Gospels that are explicitly or implicitly communicating something about Jewish life. We can then compare that with other data we have about such things.

• The Criterion of Coherence: There is a lot of material from the earliest strata of Gospel tradition which cannot be verified as authentic using the criterion of dissimilarity, but as it coheres (i.e. substantially agrees with) with material deemed authentic by the criterion of dissimilarity, it may be regarded as authentic.

  Insofar as this criterion rests upon the conclusions of the principle of dissimilarity it inherently acquires the strengths and weaknesses of it. It also has the methodological problem of determining what coheres with what, and why.

• The Criterion of Cause-Effect or Correlation: affirms a sound principle of historiography, namely, that causes postulated to account for the established effects one sees in one's sources must in fact be adequate to account for those effects.



• The Criterion of the Tendency of the Developing Tradition: seeks to discern what the evangelist as theologian/redactor has added or deleted from the tradition as he received it. This, of course, is in an attempt to "get back" to the original words or deeds of Jesus by understanding the "laws" of transmission of the tradition

  When I use this criterion in the paper and suggest that a particular tradition meets this, I mean that the tradition in question has not been altered by the later church in the light of its theological interests and that the "laws" operative in this case are ones of memorization due to the essential nature of the material.

• The Criterion of Embarrassment: brings to light sayings or actions that are in the traditions, but at the same time constitute a possible embarrassment to the church. The baptism of Jesus and Peter's denial of Christ would fall into such a category.

In the next post, I will outline Herrick's use of the above criteria to examine the historical veracity of the Resurrection accounts.

Read more!

Principles of Historical Criticism, Part I

[Part four in the Scripture and History series.]

At the end of "Miracles and History" I quoted this:

The result is that miracles are not logically absurd, nor historically impossible and therefore the wedge between history and theology (i.e. the supernatural) is unfounded. This does not mean that every report of a miracle is as probable as the next. One must critically examine the historical evidence. As concerns the Gospels this is a welcome study. Many principles have been enumerated for doing historiography and critically examining the miracles recorded in the Gospels. In the next section we will briefly state some accepted, sound guidelines for doing historiography . . .

from "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives" by Greg Herrick (see An Introduction to Christian Belief: A Layman's Guide for his systematic theology). This is the primary article I am going to follow for this, and the next, parts of the series. Right now we start out with . . .

Ernst Troeltsch

Herrick examines Troeltsch's principles from "On Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology" [definitions from "Bibical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?"]:

1. methodological doubt and criticism: “...in the realm of history there are only judgments of probability, varying from the highest to the lowest degree, and that consequently an estimate must be made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition” (Troeltsch). Brantley, in the linked article:

   Obviously, this approach precludes the possibility of complete, historical accuracy of the biblical text.

2. analogy: the key to historical criticism. This idea suggests that all legitimate, historical phenomena must have a present-day analogy. Underlying this principle is the uniformitarian assumption that all events in history are similar. Consistent with this assumption, a historian dismisses as unhistorical any recorded event that transcends the experience of contemporary humanity. [Troeltsch] rejects a priori the factuality of unique, miraculous events such as Jesus’ resurrection, since no analogous event occurs today.


3. correlation: “...knit together in a permanent relationship of correlation...in which everything is interconnected and each single event is related to all others” (Troeltsch). In other words, all historical events form a unified web of immanent causes and effects. Every event must be interpreted “...within the context of the whole of history in terms of its causes and effects, its antecedents and its consequences”. Brantley again:

   This principle views history as a closed continuum of natural causes and effects, which eliminates the possibility of a transcendent God’s entering into
   human history. Yet, that is what the Bible is all about

Herrick had far less difficulty with principles one and three - methodological doubt and correlation - than Brantley did:

Most [historians] would agree . . . that historical knowledge is only probable . . . and that the principle of correlation makes sense out of past events, causes, effects, internal probabilities, etc

His problem with analogy is only if it is taken as an absolute:

The principle of analogy . . . states that all events in present experience are similar to those in the past, otherwise the study of history would be impossible, since it proceeds by way of comparison of the present with the evidence from the past. To this principle all would agree except when uniformity is exalted as an absolute. To this few would subscribe. This leads to an a priori ruling out of certain kinds of evidence.

The point of view that applies Troeltsch's principles to the historical evidence allowing only for natural causation is known as historicism . . . As Krentz says, "The historicist view, modeled on the laws of natural science, expresses itself in the exclusion of God as a causative factor and in the denial of the possibility of a miracle." Now, we have already argued above that such an a priori stance against the supernatural is dogmatic in nature, indefensible and indeed an illusion.

Herrick deals with two criticisms of a methodology which does not a priori remove the possibility of the supernatural:

1. "it will destroy historical inquiry since it undermines the principle of analogy." Herrick quotes C.S. Lewis from On Miracles:

   But if we admit God, must we admit a miracle? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain. Theology says to you in effect, 'Admit God and with him the risk of a few miracles, and I in turn will ratify your faith in uniformity as regards the overwhelming majority of events.' The philosophy which forbids you to make uniformity absolute is also the philosophy which offers you solid grounds for believing it to be general, to be almost absolute. The Being who threatens nature's claim to omnipotence confirms her in her lawful occasions. Give us this ha' porth of tar and we will save the ship. The alternative is really much worse. Try to make nature absolute and you find that her uniformity is not even probable . . . You get the deadlock as in Hume. Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers (italics [Herrick's] except in the case of the term "almost")

2. "miracles are so contradictory to human experience so as to be absurd. This is false and remains the premise among many who deny miracles. If miracles were contradictory or absurd, we would not be able to identify them or talk about them at all. A better idea is that they are contrary to normal human experience, but not contradictory or absurd, logically speaking" - Herrick

Next time, we will look at what Herrick calls "A Better Approach":

The principles that Troeltsch outlined, when practiced from a worldview that allows for the supernatural, are extremely helpful in evaluating the evidence in order to reconstruct the past.

Read more!

Miracles and History

[Part three in the Scripture and History series]

This is the crux of the issue. It cannot be denied that the Bible includes history. When people talk about "historicity" in Scripture - they are really talking about one thing and one thing only - whether the miracles that are reported in the Jewish and Christian scriptures are historic or not. Ultimately, it comes to a point in the greatest, and most important, miracle of them all - the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, that is exactly where this series is going as well. This in not really a question of history or science - it is a question of philosophy and theology - no matter how much rationalists argue that it is. However, philosophical antisupernaturalism and rationalism has impacted the historiographic view of the Bible.

As I indicated in the introduction to the paper, this steel thread joining many scholars together, all the while producing different pictures of the historical Jesus, appears to be one aspect of their worldview. They are antisupernaturalists for the most part, grounded in the rationalistic naturalism arising out of the Enlightenment . . . "The 'historical Jesus' is a hypothesis reconstructed from the Gospels by the use of the historical-critical method on the basis of naturalistic presuppositions. Such a Jesus must be altogether and only human—a Jesus without transcendence."

This particular worldview is not only devastating to Scriptural testimony, it is also fallacious historiographically speaking and indefensible philosophically.

That comes from, and I am following, "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives", by Greg Herrick Th.M., Ph.D..

The study will proceed first by arguing for a worldview that at least permits the supernatural. A brief history of the discussion regarding antisupernaturalism in biblical studies will be offered, followed by a critique of this position which has for so long dominated biblical studies. The defense of the supernaturalistic worldview will rest primarily on historical and philosophical considerations. To wrap up the first section, a statement will be offered as to the best worldview a historian can possess in doing historiography.

Second, based upon the worldview argued for in the first part of the paper, the study will apply the criteria of authenticity to the resurrection narratives to see if they indeed are historically credible. We will see that the resurrection accounts fair very well and should be considered historically trustworthy and an integral part of any reconstruction of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

He starts with the wedge driven between history and theology by the Enlightenment and its scholarly commitment to antisupernaturalism - and particularly focuses on Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume, and Troeltsch. He examines the first two on the basis of how this view reflects on the possibility of miracles; and the last in terms of how the rationalist worldview has affected doing historiography.

Spinoza

"Nothing, then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, nay, everything agrees with them and follows from them, for whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass by the will and eternal decree of God; that is, as we have just pointed out, whatever comes to pass, comes to pass according to laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth; nature, therefore . . . keeps a fixed and immutable order" - Benedict de Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,

Geisler in Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought

[Note: J.M. Bochenski calls this the most cogent defense of miracles that he's ever seen.]

points out that Spinoza's argument against even the possibility of miracles rests on:

1. Euclidian or deductive rationalism;
2. a Newtonian view of natural law and
3. a certain understanding of the nature of God — pantheistic

Herrick: Insofar as Spinoza's arguments rest on deductive reasoning he is begging the question. He has assumed in the premises what he hopes to defend as the conclusion. He never proved through evidential means that natural laws are immutable nor that miracles are necessarily violations of natural laws — two of his key premises. The argument is formally true, but not valid. The Newtonian worldview is seriously questioned today as well. The universe appears to be expanding and getting older which destroys his argument. In other words the laws of nature are not inviolable, but rather caused and therefore contingent — not eternal and absolute, but mutable. And if it is true that the universe and natural laws came into existence at a point in time, then we ipso facto have a miracle — i.e. the creation ex nihilo of the universe.

Hume

. . . the kernel of his argument is as follows:

1. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;
2. Firm and unalterable (i.e. uniform) experience has established these laws;
3. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence and
4. Therefore the proof against miracles is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

Herrick: Hume's argument can be interpreted so as to preclude miracles a priori. We will follow the interpretation of the argument which understands him to say that the wise man will never believe in a miracle because he will never have enough evidence to substantiate such a belief.

Hume's argument is not against the possibility of miracles but against identifying or accepting them. C.S. Lewis in Miracles

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely "uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know experience against them to be false. And we all know the experience against them to be uniform if we know that all reports of them are false. And we can know all reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

Back to Herrick:

Since Hume's second premise is incorrect, his whole argument is weakened and as far as its ultimate intention, destroyed. But, what can be said of Hume's argument from the laws of nature and personal experience is that miracles are rare and therefore witnesses must be questioned to establish the probability of the event having happened.

A final critique of Hume's method concerns the vantage point in his argument . . . to argue from within the laws . . . presupposes certain truths about the laws, namely, eternality and immutability. This he could never prove as one subject to the laws. These presuppositions . . . cannot be defended today on scientific grounds, much less personal experience.

Again, as with Spinoza, there is a pantheistic assumption by Hume that God exists within the universe and laws He created, and is bound by them. Herrick's conclusion to this section

The result is that miracles are not logically absurd, nor historically impossible and therefore the wedge between history and theology (i.e. the supernatural) is unfounded. This does not mean that every report of a miracle is as probable as the next. One must critically examine the historical evidence. As concerns the Gospels this is a welcome study. Many principles have been enumerated for doing historiography and critically examining the miracles recorded in the Gospels. In the next section we will briefly state some accepted, sound guidelines for doing historiography before we directly examine the "criteria of authenticity"

Next time, I will follow Herrick through an examination of Troeltsch's views of historiography and on into an historical-critical view of the resurrection accounts free from a antisupernaturalist bias.

Read more!