The Importance of Trying to Determine How Ancient MSS. Were Used
Over on Larry Hurtado’s blog there is an interesting short article about textual transmission. The article reports on studies in ancient classical Latin texts by a scholar named James Zetzel. It is worth reading because it recognizes that understanding the purpose and use of a manuscript will help determine the degree of reliability of the manuscript, or at least the chances of it being changed.
I remember reading Kurt Aland’s opinion that it is imperative that textual critics become conversant with the history of the Early Church. This article reinforces that belief by showing the important connection between usage of a text and the integrity of its transmission.
A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology (2)
Why Did Covenant Theology Take Hold?
We have already indicated that political expediency may have encouraged the covenant mindset, at least early on. But theologically speaking, there is one overwhelming reason for its attraction. The covenant concept, especially the Covenant Of Grace, brings the Old and New Testaments together into one unity (which Dispensationalists like myself would say is a artificial, forced unity). The Covenant Of Grace provides the continuity that is essential if the Church is to be the one people of God in both Testaments that Reformed theology claims it to be.
Johannes Coccieus (d. 1669) issued in 1648 a book that presented an outline of the scriptural teaching on salvation. In tracing salvation from the creation of Adam (who was originally under the Covenant of Works) down to the end of time (the elect under the Covenant of Grace), Coccieus had presented his Dutch constituency with a progressive historical outworking of God’s decree[1] (his system included the Millennium). Herman Witsius’ (d. 1708) scheme differs from that of Coccieus in that it is more concerned with systematic theology and practical living (including Sabbath-keeping) than with a mere outlining of salvation history. His book, The Economy of the Divine Covenants (1677), issued last in two volumes with a Forward by J. I. Packer, is a wonderfully devout work filled with the kind of robust theology which characterized the best of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. It is hardly surprising that this work is seen as a premier account of CT. Read more »
A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology (1)
As an outsider to Covenant Theology (CT), but one who has attended a Seminary that taught it and who appreciates the great men associated with it, I thought I would write a short history of Covenant Theology for those non-CT’s who might like to know a tad more about it.
[Don't worry, I'll return to the 95 Theses very shortly!]
My purpose in here is not to define what is known as Covenant Theology. What I wish to do is to provide some of the salient historical backdrop to it and then ask why it has proven itself so durable.
I think a good way to do this is to present four questions which I will then attempt to answer.
Four Questions
- How old is Covenant Theology (CT)?
- When did it gain prominence?
- Why did it take hold?
- Summary: What is its status today?
It is not my wish to get technical and sophisticated. This little presentation is just an overview. Read more »
Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (2) – Theses 1-6
95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM
1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around 1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.
Response: By “plain interpretation” Ryrie simply meant grammatico-historical hermeneutics (G-H) (see his book Dispensationalism, 79-88). There is nothing novel about this. G-H was employed by the Reformers. The issue is about whether to use G-H consistently across the board. This, as Ryrie sates, is what sets off Dispensational hermeneutics from other theologies.
That “plain interpretation” only came to light in the 1830′s is an egregious error which any textbook touching upon the subject will rectify. That it should be employed consistently when interpreting Scripture is more to the point. But the point is a minor one. The argument is that if something is “relatively new” it must be refused admittance. This commits two clear errors: 1. this would have to apply to G-H (or Covenant Theology) circa 1550-1650. G-H was not the preferred hermeneutic of the “Church” for over a thousand years! It used to be “a relatively new innovation.” 2. But the main point here is that this abuses the quadrilateral – Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience. One cannot use Tradition to trump Scripture. Tradition (as Reason and Experience) is subservient to Scripture. What really matters here is whether Dispensational theology is biblical. I say it is. The authors and signatories of the 95 Theses say otherwise. That is where the matter must be settled.
2. Contrary to the dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward. (See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).
Response: We are glad that the reader is directed to two books to check out this assertion. The “quotes” from Ryrie and Justin remind us of a Watchtower magazine. No way to check them out. But to get a better idea of Erickson’s opinion I submit the following:
“The first three centuries of the church were probably dominated by what we would today call premillennialism…” (Christian Theology, 1213 cf. 1215).
To this agree John Hannah (Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, 306), and James Orr (The Progress of Dogma, 345-346). Orr writes, “So far as the early Churchhad a doctrine of the last things it was prevailingly chiliastic, i.e., millenarian.” In a footnote he gives Papias, Justin and Irenaeus. It would not be difficult to find similar statements in most authoritative texts.
This is another incidental matter. That a minority held differing views on the millennium in the first three centuries may be true. But premillennialism (though not dispensational) was the popular view. Read more »
Review of “Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman”
Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman, by John R. Muether, Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2008.
Any biographer of a man like Cornelius Van Til needs to assume certain things. First, Van Til’s thought, though brilliant, is not always easy to divine. Second, that this is made more problematical by the coming together of at least two different obstacles: a. Van Til’s sometimes awkward way of putting things, and, b. the difficulty many of us have with obeying the injunction to “bring every thought into captivity to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Third, one who would write about Van Til must keep in mind that owing in no small part to the foregoing points, the famed Westminster apologist is often not closely or sympathetically read by his opponents, who content themselves too much with the misrepresentations of him which have been handed down as unquestioned truths over the years. Fourthly, these characterizations help serve the agendas of those conservative Christians who like to flirt with wayward evangelicals who enjoy rubbing shoulders with non-evangelical intellectuals like Barth, Balthasar or Ricoeur. It is for reasons such as these that the uncompromising thrust of Van Til’s thinking, and its conscious antithetical attitude towards unbiblical opinions must be explained if his important work is to be appreciated, especially by readers who may desire to be introduced to the man and to understand his influence.
Review of “A Concise History of Christian Thought” (Tony Lane)
A Concise History of Christian Thought, rev. & exp. by Tony Lane, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006, pbk, 336 pp., $19.99.
This is one of the most accessible histories of Christian doctrine I have seen. The author teaches Historical Theology at London School of Theology and is well regarded in the evangelical community. The method employed in the book is to survey the lives of the eminent theologians from East and West and connect them with the controversies or disputes which oftentimes brought forth their notable works. The book is divided into five parts, covering the early Fathers to AD 500; then the Eastern and Western traditions from AD 500 to the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The last part deals with the Modern world from AD 1800. The influence of Williston Walker’s famous A History of the Christian Church can be traced, especially in Part Four.
The treatment of each thinker is necessarily abbreviated, yet Lane knows what he is doing and therefore makes good use of his space. By viewing Christian thought through the lives of individuals the whole subject becomes less imposing and less abstract; qualities which should recommend this book as a textbook for senior undergraduate and first year graduate students.
Sadly Lane falls into the trap of departing from orthodoxy in giving space to the likes of Barth, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Urs von Balthasar and others. I suppose this is inevitable in a work such as this, but this should have been redressed more than it is with better coverage of evangelicals such as Gill, Fuller, Darby, Machen, Van Til, Henry, and Lloyd-Jones. There is also a notable dearth of Dutch theologians in the book, both from the Further Reformation (Voetius, Cocceus, Witsius) and the neo-Calvinist movement associated with men like Kuyper, Bavinck and Dooyeweerd. These are important omissions.
But with that said this book does accomplish much and, therefore, deserves our recommendation.
Church History: Table of Contents
A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation – a paper.
Yesterday’s Giants
A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation
The history of the interpretation of the Bible is a long and involved one. For many centuries people have approached the Scriptures supposing that it should be interpreted literally whenever possible, or that one ought to look deeper than the surface meaning to find its true spiritual center. Still others have believed that the Old and (to a lesser extent) the New Testament is opened up by means of three or four hermeneutical categories. In this paper we shall try to review the main schools of interpretation, especially throughout the history of the Church.
Read more »
Yesterday’s Giants – part 3
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)
J. N. Darby is not as well known today, as he should be. He was a movement leader, a missionary, a scholar, Bible translator, apologist, and, unofficially, “the father of Dispensationalism.” The respected preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once publicly referred to him as “the great Darby.” He was born in London on the cusp of the 19th Century, a time of spiritual decline in England after the revivals of the previous half- century. Educated at the private Westminster School and then Trinity College, Dublin, where he was the recipient of the gold medal in classics, he spent the next few years practicing law. Around 1824 he abandoned that career and went into the Church of England, spending two years doing pioneer work in southern Ireland.
Increasingly, Darby began to find himself disagreeing with the Anglican Church and became convinced that Christianity had bedecked itself with unbiblical customs. Together with other likeminded individuals he started “breaking bread” and Bible study, first in Dublin, and then in Plymouth in southwest England. From these “assemblies” came a movement known as the Plymouth Brethren. With a simplified view of the Church and emphasis upon the imminent appearing of Christ for the saints at the pretribulational rapture the movement spread rapidly, owing in no small way to the missionary endeavors of Darby, especially in Switzerland, France and Germany. Darby was no “sheep-stealer,” but was very effective as an evangelist and discipler. He also made successful trips to New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.
As “the father of Dispensationalism,” as he is sometimes called, he gave definite form to the teaching (which predated him) that God had dealt differently with man in biblical history (e.g. giving the Law to Israel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Church – Jn. 1:14), teachings which relied upon a plain sense, literal (though not literalistic) interpretation of Bible prophecy. Perhaps his best known work is his five volume Synopsis of the Books of the Bible though his collected works total thirty-four volumes. He also produced accurate translations of the Bible in English, French, and German.
Yesterday’s Giants – part 2
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
America has produced many great minds, many men and women whose intellects have made them notables in the history books. One whose name shines as bright as any that could be named is Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was contemporary with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, but unlike them, he could not be called a child of the Enlightenment. He was a pastor of a medium sized Congregational church in New England, and one of the most remarkable things about him is that he was able to transcend the cultural outlook of those around him. Unlike even men like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, two of the greatest theologians of the next century, he did not buy into the widespread belief that Christians shared the same basic evaluation of the world as non-Christians. He saw clearly that Jesus Christ not only saves souls but can save minds too. His sermons, which were heard by farmers and ironmongers and millers, as well as by schoolmasters and physicians, were weighty, highly organized examples of forceful yet spiritual reasoning. For example, his sermon on “Christian Knowledge” (from Hebrews 5:12) he maintains, “There is no other way by which any means of grace whatsoever can be of any benefit, but by knowledge. All teaching is vain, without learning. Therefore the preaching of the gospel would be wholly to no purpose, if it conveyed no knowledge to the mind…If men have no knowledge of these things, the faculty of reason in them will be wholly in vain…Therefore a man cannot have his faculty of understanding to any good purpose, further than he has knowledge of divine truth.”
In our day of cozy sermonettes this sounds like a theological lecture, but Edwards was convinced that God had created man’s mind to hear God’s truth, so he could not shortchange the Apostles and Prophets. These weekly deliveries of solid doctrine did not dry his people up. In fact the very reverse is true. Edwards was at the center of powerful spiritual revivals on two separate occasions. His most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” a fairly untypical message, was preached in the midst of revival in 1741.
As a writer Edwards showed himself to be a profound philosopher-theologian. He had a knack for close analysis, a skill he had honed by his notable investigating of spiders and their webs. Such a profound thinker was Edwards that he is rightly accounted America’s greatest theologian and one of her greatest philosophers – which brings us back to where we started. He died of smallpox in 1758, shortly after assuming the presidency of the College of New Jersey (Princeton).
-
Recent Comments
