Incoherence or Sentimentality

Published on by D. G. Hart9 Comments

Reed DePace has a thoughtful post at Greenbaggins on the inerrancy debate to which Pete Enns was a catalyst.  His point is that the defenders of Enns are incoherent.  The reason is the following syllogism to which Enns’ defenders resort:

1. The Bible contains non-incidental errors.
2. The Bible itself is inerrant.
3. This is not a contradiction.

DePace goes on to worry about the effects of such an incoherent argument on the church:

If I find your arguments incoherent, what do you think the average layperson hears when they read what you’ve written? One of you recently actually said, in the same paragraph, the Bible has errors, and the Bible is inerrant. (A fair paraphrase.) The context of those statements did not remove the onus present in this summary.

Brothers, assume for a second your position is right, and it will be a blessing to the Church in the future. Does not the significance of the subject (the only rule for faith and practice, THE source of spiritual food for the people of God) necessitate more care and caution on your parts?

Not to take away from DePace’ s legitimate point and concern, I wonder if the problem has less to do with incoherence than it does with sentimentality — namely, attaching more sentiment to an object of affection than is fitting.  In this case, it would be clinging to a high view of Scripture even though it has all the earmarks of other books from the ancient near east. 

Actually, what passes for sentimentality here was for J. Gresham Machen an instance of mysticism, and he believed that it fueled much of liberal Protestant piety and its unwillingness to abandon the religion of the Bible.   In What is Faith? Machen wrote:

Mysticism unquestionably is the natural result of the anti-intellectual tendency which now prevails; for mysticism is the consistent exaltation of experience at the expense of thought. . . . In particular, those who discard theology in the interests of experience are inclined to make use of a personal way of talking and thinking about God to which they have no right. . . . All personal communion seems to be a simple thing: yet it is in reality very complex.  My friendship for a human friend, for example, depends upon years of observation of my friend’s actions.  So it is exactly in the case of the communion of the Christian with his God.  The Christian says: “Lord, thou knowest that we are on the same old terms.”  It seems very simple and very untheological.  But in reality it depends upon the whole rich content of God’s revelation of Himself in the salvation which He has provided through His Son. . . . The experience of the real mystic, then, as distinguished from that experience of direct contact with God in the depths of the soul which is popularly called mysticism — the latter being of course a part of all vital religion — is not Christian experience; for Christian experience is a thoroughly personal thing; the Christian holds fellowship with a Person whom he knows.

Which raises the question — do the advocates of a messy Bible really know and pray to a messy God?  Or do they overcompensate for their understanding of the Bible with a piety grounded in a deity who reveals himself reliably and truthfully?  If so, it would qualify as plundering the Israelites.

We Apologize

Published on by D. G. Hart4 Comments

Because some readers of the NTJ took exception to a recent article, and because we had no intention of giving offense, we offer the following apology:

With reference to the article “Priorities” in the last NTJ (Winter 2009), the editors unreservedly apologize for implying that there is any tension between the position of Carl Trueman and Richard Gaffin on the matter of justification regarding the bounds of confessional orthodoxy; we also apologize for the fact that Dr. Gaffin was quoted out of context in the article in a manner that distorted his views, and we affirm that his recent response to John Fesko in Ordained Servant (March 2009) represents a satisfactory clarification of the comment we misquoted; we further apologize for implying that Dr. Gaffin’s views are contrary to the Protestant confessional consensus on justification and for writing that they constitute “a new perspective on Paul,” which uses eschatology to overturn the consensus of the Reformers and the Reformed creeds; and we acknowledge that the biblical notion of union with Christ does not contradict or contravene, directly or impliedly, anything taught in the Westminster Standards.

D. G. Hart and John R. Muether

The Great Debate: Psalms vs. Hymns IV

Published on by D. G. Hart12 Comments

(Reprinted from NTJ, April 1997)

From: Glenn Morangie
To:T. Glen Livet
Date: 9/4/96 10:46am
Subject: Re: Psalmody -Reply -Reply -Reply

Glen,
Wow, such a sensitive guy to issue such a long and personal response. I must have struck a nerve or you must be convicted by the power of the word. (Or could it be that I am just brilliant?)

Please be advised, however, that I did not say that you were guilty of not taking the other side seriously. I actually complimented you as one of the few hymn-singers who could make an intelligent argument and also respect the motives of the other side, while also recognizing the position psalmody has had in the tradition. But chances are you didn’t read my exemption of you because of the medium. Unless something is on the page we don’t read it as carefully. The tv screen and the never-never land of the Net must explain your taking offense. I am sorry if I gave any. But don’t be so sensitive. Continue reading “The Great Debate: Psalms vs. Hymns IV” →

Father Interlocutor

Published on by D. G. Hart2 Comments

Richard John Neuhaus, who died fairly suddenly on Jan. 8, 2009, was an inspiration for the NTJ, both as an editor and a critic of mainstream American Christianity (read: Protestantism). That is about where any comparison between this publication and his, First Things, begins and abruptly ends. Where Neuhaus rubbed shoulders with religious and political elites in New York City, Washington, D.C., and the Vatican, the editors of the NTJ occasionally run into faculty from other Reformed seminaries, mix with commissioners at the OPC’s General Assembly, and occasionally give a paper at a professional learned society. Where Neuhaus used those connections to raise funds for an intellectual journal of remarkable substance, the editors of the NTJ subsidize the publication of their “journal” by smoking pipes more than cigars. (As they say, “pennies a bowl.”) Where Neuhaus drew on a gifted set of writers and editors to produce a variety of strong articles and reviews, the editors of the NTJ rely on a handful of writers whose total is increased by sometimes employing pseudonyms.

If truth be told, the idea for the section of the NTJ called, “39 Alexander Hall,” was one part Machen, the other part Neuhaus. We not only wanted to use the space to editorialize in the royal we, we hoped to replicate in a small way Neuhaus’ combination of wit, sarcasm, nay-saying, and clarity of conviction in “The Public Square.”

Not so fast, pilgrim. To read this piece in its entirety, you need to subscribe to the NTJ.

Justification by Works, What the . . . !

Published on by D. G. Hart7 Comments

Or, beware the ellipses.

Steven R. Coxhead, an Old Testament scholar in Australia, has a piece in the current issue of the Westminster Theological Journal that is mind numbingly perplexing. The title gives away the author’s argument: “John Calvin’s Subordinate Doctrine of Justification by Works.” He concludes that although Calvin rejected a view of justification that included faith and works, still Calvin “did teach a doctrine of justification by works that operates on two levels.” For Coxhead, justification by faith alone operates in Calvin on a level of absolute righteousness, while justification by works operates on the level of “God’s gracious covenant.” He adds that those who “deny Calvin taught a subordinate and legitimate doctrine of justification by works have arguably not understood the genius of Calvin’s teaching on this issue.”

Say what?

Could it be that Coxhead has failed to understand Calvin on justification? For instance, he uses this quotation from the Institutes to substantiate his argument:

“Works righteousness . . . depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by this” and “ought to . . . be subordinated to [faith] . . . as effect to cause.” [17]

Here is the full quotation from Calvin [3.17.10]:

Therefore, as we ourselves, when we have been engrafted in Christ, are righteous in God’s sight because our iniquities are covered by Christian’s sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are thus regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ’s purity, and is not charged to our account. Accordingly, we can deservedly say that by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified. Now if this works righteousness – whatever its character – depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by this, it ought to be included under faith and be subordinated to it, so to speak, as effect to cause, so far is it from having any right be raised up to destroy or becloud justification of faith.

Another example of Coxhead’s selectivity comes when he quotes Calvin to say: “it follows from justification of faith that works otherwise impure, unclean, half done, unworthy in God’s sight, not to mention his love, are accounted [i.e., imputed as] righteousness.” [17]

Compare this snippet with the full section in Calvin [3.17.9]:

Now if anyone raises this objection against me to impugn faith righteousness, I shall first ask whether a man is reckoned righteous because of one or two holy works, while he is a transgressor in the remaining works of his life. This is indeed more than absurd. Then I shall inquire whether he is reckoned righteous even on account of many good works if he is in some part indeed found guilty of transgression. He will not dare put forward this contention when the sanction of the law cries out and proclaims accursed all who have not completely fulfilled all the commandments of the law [Deut. 27:26]. I shall inquire still further – whether there be any work that does not deserve to be censured for some impurity or imperfection. And how could there be such work before those eyes, to which not even the stars are clean enough [Job 25:5], nor the angels righteous enough [Job 4:18]? Thus he shall be compelled to admit that no good work exists which is not so defiled both with attendant transgressions and with its own corruption that it cannot bear the honorable name of righteousness. But if, of a certainty, it follows from justification of faith that works otherwise impure, unclean, half done, unworthy of God’s sight, not to mention his love, are accounted righteousness, why do they by boasting of works righteousness try to destroy justification of faith, without whose existence they would boast of such righteousness in vain?

Calvin goes on to say, “Do they wish to spawn a viper’s brood? The statements of the impious tend in this direction. They cannot deny that justification of faith is the beginning, foundation, cause, proof, and substance of works righteousness. Nevertheless, they conclude that man is not justified by faith, because good works are also accounted righteousness.”

It looks like Steven Coxhead, had he read Calvin a bit more carefully, might have seen the viper’s brood that he was spawning in his article by beclouding justification by faith alone. Why those responsible for the WTJ would give a hearing to an Old Testament scholar trying to do historical theology is a mystery. Hasn’t the school had enough trouble of late?

Another Part of the Conn-versation

Published on by D. G. HartLeave a comment

From Harvie Conn, “A Church with a Message,” Presbyterian Guardian, Jan. 1958

Our Church has too many faults. Seminary professors, and students have long been pointing them out. But with all her faults, I love her still. As a new year rolls around, I’m thankful to be a minister of God’s pure gospel in her fold. As a minister upholding her ways, there is at least a message I may bring. As Machen put it to beautifully, many years ago, at the beginning of the conflict that still rages, “Whatever be the limitations of your gifts, you will at least have a message. You will be, in one respect at least, unlike most persons who love to talk in public at the present time; you will have one qualification of a speaker – you will have something to say.” Find the hungry heart that needs such a message, and then you will have your chance. “While angels look on, you will have your moment of glorious opportunity – the moment when you can speak the word that God has given you to speak. It will be a word of warning; false hopes must be ruthlessly destroyed. But it will also be a word of wondrous joy. What can be compared, brethren, to the privilege of proclaiming to needy souls the exuberant joy of the gospel of Christ?” For that gospel, that good news, that announcement of truth, and not opinion, I give thanks this year.

Rob Bell on, you know, "The Healing Thing"

Published on by D. G. Hart13 Comments

Christianity Today recently interviewed Rob Bell, the pastor responsible for taking emergent Christianity to the New Jerusalem of North American neo-Calvinism. Among the different questions and answers was this exchange:

You say, “Jesus wants to save us from making the Good News about another world and not this one.” What do you mean?

The story is about God’s intentions to bring about a new heaven and a new earth, and the story begins here with shalom—shalom between each other and with our Maker and with the earth. The story line is that God intends to bring about a new creation, this place, this new heaven and earth here. And that Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning, essentially, of the future; this great Resurrection has rushed into the present.

The evacuation theology that says, “figure out the ticket, say the right prayer, get the right formula, and then we’ll go somewhere else” is lethal to Jesus, who endlessly speaks of the renewal of all things.

All well and good, but how is this good news to people with no earthly hope? If I’m dying of aids or cancer, I probably don’t give a rip about the renewal of all things. I want to know if my sins are forgiven, and when I die, if am I going to see Jesus or not.

Yes, and I would say that central to that new creation is the problem with the first creation—death. The Resurrection is about God dealing with the death problem. And central to this giant cosmic hope is a very intimate, yes, you can trust this Jesus. You can trust this new creation. You can trust being with him when you die, when you leave this life, however you want to put it. Yes, there is an intensely personal dimension to this giant story that you and I get to be a part of.

And neo-Calvinists wonder why two-kingdom folks are worried about blurring distinctions between creation and redemption, between Christ’s Lordship as creator and his rule as mediator, between this world and the world to come?

This is not to say that neo-Calvinists are saying the same thing as Rob Bell. But what is the difference substantially, that Bell hasn’t met enough Dutch folk to be able to pronounce Dooeyweerd?

Winding the Theonomists Up

Published on by D. G. Hart17 Comments

Over at First Principles, Lynn Robinson has a good review essay of a new IVP book by Greg Foster, The Contested Public Square: The Crisis of Christianity and Politics.  Robinson quotes Foster to good effect about the political theology of the New Testament (or the lack thereof):

Almost the only political teaching it provides is that a person’s ordinary political duties (behaving peacefully, obeying the law, paying taxes, etc.) continue to apply when rulers deny God and persecute believers. . . . The New Testament’s silence on politics combined with the apostles’ setting aside the political order of the Old Testament leaves the faithful with no revelatory instruction as to how their political affairs are to be ordered.

Why is this so hard to understand? I guess the one consolation for theonomists, whether soft or hard, is the support they get from the good bishop Tom Wright who interprets the Lordship of Christ in ways remarkably similar to our politically challenged friends.