A (still) forthcoming book on the doctrine of Scripture and an audio taster.

Don Carson’s preface to his Collected Writings on Scripture (Apollos, 2010) mentions a forthcoming two-volume work due to be published in 2012 and featuring no less than 36 authors: “Tentatively entitled The Scripture Project, the set aims to work through fundamental biblical, theological, historical, and philosophical issues related to the doctrine of Scripture.”

Never having heard of this, I went searching. I discovered an updated title - “But My Words Will Never Pass Away”: The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures – and an expanding list of expected publication dates: 2013, 2014, 2015. I also found a list of contributors:

D. A. Carson (editor), Charles Hill,  Glenn Sunshine, Rodney L. Stiling, John Woodbridge, Tom McCall, Bradley N. Seeman, Anthony N. S. Lane, Robert Kolb, David Gibson, Stephen Dempster, V. Phillips Long, Simon J. Gathercole, Peter. J. Williams, Graham Cole, Peter Jensen, Henri Blocher, Alex G. Smith, Harold Netland, Barry G. Webb, Mark Thompson, Osvaldo Padilla, Craig Blomberg, Douglas J. Moo, Andrew David Naselli, Kevin Vanhoozer, James Beilby, R. Scott Smith, Michael Rea, Paul Helm, Richard Lints, Kirsten Birkett, Te-Li Lau, Ida Glaser, Timothy Tennent, Bruce K. Waltke, Dan Doriani

Hopefully it will be published this year. As a foretaste, a number of the authors recently spoke at the Evangelical Free Church of America Theology conference. The audio is all available online (details below).

Conference Sessions: The Doctrine of the Scriptures

D.A. Carson, Introduction to the Present-Day Discussion (Audio)

John Woodbridge, The History of Biblical Authority: Nine Pointers (Audio)

Kevin Vanhoozer, Inerrancy and Hermeneutics (Audio) (PowerPoint)

V. Philips Long, Competing Histories, Competing Theologies, and the Challenge of Old Testament Interpretation (Audio) (PDF)

Douglas Moo, The New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Audio) (PowerPoint)

Panel Discussion - D.A. Carson, John Woodbridge, Douglas Moo (Audio)

Graham Cole, The Theology of Canonicity: Why a Book, Why this Book, Why this Sequence of Books within the Book (Audio)

Panel Discussion - Graham Cole, V. Philips Long, Daniel Doriani (Audio)

Daniel Doriani, Scripture in the Life of the Pastor (Audio) (PowerPoint)

Taking Calvin's name in vain

It is remarkable how easily figures of the past are appropriated to suit the agendas and prejudices of the present. Calvin is a case in point. From time to time he plays the moderate scholar to Luther’s firebrand polemicist or the warm pastor-scholar whose intellectual children did him the disservice of creating cold and contractual Calvinism, but he has generally played the villain.

A fascinating survey of this theme is ‘Images of Intolerance: John Calvin in Nineteenth-Century History Textbooks’ by Thomas Davis (Church History, Volume 65 June 1996, 234-248) which highlights how type-cast Calvin became and gives an account of why that should be so.^[1]  

To give a few examples:

Universal History, in Perspective (1850) gives prominence to only one fact about the Reformer: “Calvin, about 1542 [the wrong date], caused Servetus to be burned as a heretic.”

In Outlines of History (1873) it is suggested (quite extraordinarily) that Servetus was burned on the grounds that “had denied that Judea was a beautiful, rich, and fertile country; and affirmed, on the authority of travellers, that it was poor, barren, and disagreeable.” I mean, what’s with this Calvin guy?

Servetus’ scientific research also comes to the fore (he was among other things a keen scientist). In The Story of Modern Progress (1920) it is alleged that the suppression of his theological views also led to the suppression of his discoveries relating to the circulation of blood, on account of which “hundreds of thousands of lives” were lost throughout Europe over the next fifty years (quoted in Davis, 238).

Then there are Calvin’s predestinarian views. Although not unique to him he stands alone “because of certain stern doctrines on the subject of God’s sovereignty” (Outlines of General History, 1899)

Ultimately the sternness extends to the man also: he is represented as “the constitutional lawyer of the Reformation, with vision as clear, with head as cool, with soul as dry, as any old solicitor in rusty black that ever dwelt in chambers in Lincoln’s Inn. His sternness was that of the judge who dooms a criminal to the gallows.” (The Beginnings of New England; or the Puritan Theocracy in Its Relation to Civil Liberty, 1889).

The oddity of all this is that these works were self-consciously Protestant in many cases. But as Davis argues there are several other narratives in play which force Calvin into that dark corner, many of which circle around the question of American identity. Throughout the period, independence of thought and the freedom from external pressure was paramount. In that context Luther could easily play the hero, facing off against Rome. But Calvin? He finds himself in the role of the oppressor. And the doctrine seemingly most oppressive to human freedom – predestination – is hung round his neck.

In addition, evident in the titles already mentioned, there is the myth of human progress:

“All events in Western civilization were to be judged, according to one author, ‘by how they contributed to human progress.’ Another author concerned himself with those things that contributed to the ‘developing spirit of humanity.’ Still another offered textbooks to the American public to give readers ‘general view of human progress.’” (Davis, 241)

Servetus, therefore, gets to play the hero in two senses, not only as the martyr to independent thought but also to scientific progress.

As Davis highlights, in the attempt to retain some connection with the Reformation, two strategies were developed. First, the ‘spirit of the Reformation,’ identified as the supremacy of human liberty etc., was separated from the Reformers who (Calvin chiefly) failed to live up to the ideals consistently. Secondly, Luther is elevated as a foil to Calvin, serving as “a symbol of freedom of thought because of his stand against the pope” (Davis, 245). By contrast, and in a remarkably polemical twist, Calvin is placed “not in the camp of Luther, the Reformation, and freedom of thought, but within the ranks of the papacy” (Davis, 246). Thus in General History for Colleges and High Schools (1889) he is styled as the “Protestant Pope.”

All in all it’s a striking reminder that the past is far too easily appropriated to support our presuppositions. The past rarely agrees with us as much as we’d like, and we’d do well to go looking for things that challenge us in the works of our heroes and for things we’ve overlooked in the works of our villains. Oh, and skip the textbooks.

---

[1] I was put on to the article by a Fred Sanders lecture on Calvin available here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/itunes-u/torrey-honors-theology-audio/id391217366?mt=10

reviewing Wright

A few choice moments from John M.G. Barclay's review of N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Freely available here

“Wright develops his claim that Paul’s theology constitutes an unspoken but persistent challenge to the claims of Caesar, such that Paul saw all the ‘powers’ of the cosmos ‘coming together and doing their worst precisely in and through Rome itself’ (1311). Paul of course never says this, and the thesis requires that Paul left unspoken in all of his letters his real analysis of the world.”

“A crucial move, on which ‘a good deal hangs’ (775) is the claim that Paul reads the election of Abraham/Israel as designed to undo Adam’s sin and its effects (784), to deal with evil (907), in short, to save or to rescue the world (814, 839, etc.). This hypothesis is advanced by a reading of Genesis, where parallels between the creation story and the story of Abraham are taken to suggest that Abraham is called to undo Adamic sin, a reading which Wright confesses is unsupported by most commentators on Genesis (785n27). The assertion that this reasoning is evidenced in Second Temple Judaism is unconvincing: apart from a citation from Genesis Rabbah (794), a text written many centuries after Paul, Wright produces no Jewish texts which suggest anything like the claim that Israel was the means by which God would rescue the world. And, crucially, there is nothing in Paul to substantiate this claim… a central load bearing pillar in Wright’s edifice looks dangerously weak.”

“Wright’s reading of the justification of the ungodly (4:5) as the justification of the Gentiles (despite the immediate context in Rom 4:1-8, the backdrop of 3:10-20 and the parallel in 5:6) reflects a persistent failure to grapple with the radicality of Paul’s gospel of the unconditioned gift. A wholistic reading of Romans 4 reveals that Paul tells the story of Abraham not only to show that the Abrahamic family includes Gentiles but also that its origin is incongruous grace.” [NB this is new reading of Rom 4 that Wright's been offering since 2013. More to follow on this...]

“Those who know the Reformers and their writings will wince at some of the generalisations (to put it generously) articulated here.”

"According to Wright, Lutherans tend to say ‘that God has cut off the Israel-plan and done something completely different’ (499). Reformation thought is divided: ‘is the law a good thing (Calvin) or a bad thing (Luther)?’ (514). This is so crude, and so misleading with regard to Luther, that one wonders what level of readership Wright expects."

not that reassuring

There was a most candid interview on the Today programme on Friday last week.

A former head of counter terrorism at MI6 had been attending Barack Obama’s summit in Washington, which gathered people from over five dozen countries to address the issue of extremism. He was asked “What’s the most interesting thing you’ve heard in Washington in the last days”:

 “I’m afraid to say that the most interesting thing I’ve heard is the confusion about what to do. And I think that is disappointing in a way. It is understandable but it is disappointing that all the great minds that have been put to thinking about this problem haven’t really come up with a sensible way forward. So, you know, I guess that means we need to keep trying and keep working at it and sort of help it to burn out.” 

1 Tim 2:1-2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Psalm 146:3 Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.

Some notes on 1 Sam 17

I love the David and Goliath narrative and have preached it a few times, always learning something fresh. Here’s a few notes that have helped me get a grip on the passage:

1 Sam 17 is a temptation scene: God’s people fail to trust in the Lord, tempted by a scale-armoured snake until his head is crushed

1 Sam 17 is an abdication: Saul won’t fight for his people despite the fact that

-       it’s his job to go out before his people and fight their battles (8:20),

-       he’s their own giant (9:2)

-       God has promised to strengthen the king (2:10)

And so he hands over his armour to David the way a cowardly sheriff hands over his badge in a Western.

1 Sam 17:26 is a turning point. Before that everyone think it’s a fight between Philistines and Israelites. David knows it’s a fight between the Philistines and the living God. Remembering that makes our enemies a lot smaller. After 17:26 Goliath isn’t called Goliath anymore. He’s just “the Philistine.” He’s been cut down to size.

1 Sam 17 is a slow story. The Israelites and Philistines faced each other for 40 days, morning and evening (17:16). That means the Israelites stood there listening to Goliath’s taunts 80 times. And every time “they all ran from him in great fear” (17:24). Forgetting the Lord hands us over to fear.

Notice the shouting. The Israelites give a battle cry every time they march to battle (17:20). I bet that sounded good on Day 1. Not so good on Day 30, Day 39…

Notice one more shout in 17:52. I bet that one sounded good. God’s people see the Lord powerfully deliver them through an apparently weak king, they celebrate, and do battle with an already defeated enemy. That there’s the Christian life.