Matt Chandler

Denny Burk posted a message given by Matt Chandler at SBTS's recent chapel. This message on Hebrews 11 & 12 struck a chord in my heart of my own wickedness and selfish "christian" lifestyle. He spoke with power and conviction and his thoughts hit me head on. Check it out.

HT: DB

Frame's Review of Horton's "Christless Christianity"

John Frame writes a very critical review of Mike Horton's, Christless Christianity. His conclusion:

I usually don’t review books at this length. But I have noticed that the theology of this book is becoming more influential in evangelical and Reformed circles, and I believe there is danger in that. I say that despite the fact that I agree with the book about many things. Most relevantly, I agree with Horton that the evangelical church needs to put more emphasis on man’s sin and the saving grace of Christ, less emphasis on what Horton regards as other things and what I regard as the lower-priority applications of Christ’s work. But he thinks this wrong emphasis is so bad as to put the church in immediate danger of Christless apostasy. I do not.

Horton’s alarmism is persuasive to many people, and I have been moved to try to show them their persuasion is premature. The problem is that the yardstick Horton uses to measure the American church’s allegiance to Christ is not an accurate yardstick. Or, to drop the metaphor, Horton measures the American church with a defective theology.

He comes on to the reader as a generic Protestant Christian with a passion for the historic doctrines of the atonement and of justification by faith alone. He writes engagingly. Naturally, then, other Protestants tend to resonate to his arguments. But Horton is not just a generic Protestant or even a generic Reformed theologian. He holds certain positions that are not warranted by the Reformed Confessions and which in my mind are not even Scriptural. To review, he advocates the following:

1. Attention to ourselves necessarily detracts from attention to Christ.

2. We should not give attention to the way we communicate the gospel, or to making it relevant to its hearers.

3. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are a zero-sum game. The idea that man must do something compromises the absolute sovereignty of God.

4. God’s work of salvation is completely objective, external to us, and not at all subjective, internal to us. (Here he backtracks some.)

5. God promises us no earthly blessings, only heavenly ones, and to desire earthly blessings is a “theology of glory,” deserving condemnation.

6. Law and gospel should be utterly separate. There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news.

7. Preaching of the gospel must never use biblical characters as moral or spiritual examples. Nor must it address practical ethical issues in the Christian life.

8. A focus on redemption excludes a focus on anything else.

9. In worship and in the general ministry of the church, God gives and does not receive; the congregation receives and does not give.

10. Analysts of the church must compare the Church’s focus on Christ with its focus on other things, rather than considering that many of these other things are in fact applications of Christ’s own person and work.

Horton considers adherence to these principles essential, so that departing from them constitutes Christlessness, and failure to emphasize them sufficiently leads to a false gospel. But not one of these principles is found in any Reformed confession. (#6 is found in the Lutheran confessions, but it is controversial among other Protestants.) And in my view, none of them are Scriptural.

So Christless Christianity is essentially an evaluation of the American church, not from the standpoint of a generic Protestant theology, but from what I must regard as a narrow, factional, even sectarian perspective. Readers need to understand this. If we remove #1-10 as measuring sticks for the American church, the church does not look nearly as bad as Horton presents it.

There is great danger here of further division within the body of Christ, as if there were not already enough. Arguments over redemptive-historical preaching (#7) have already split congregations apart. When one group presents these principles as the only orthodox position, but others (understandably) are not convinced, and the principles themselves are often unclear, we have a recipe for disaster.

And the church would do well, in my judgment, not to add principles 1-10 to its creed. The results could include intentional irrelevance (1-2), especially on social matters (5, 7, 8), Christian passivity (3, 9), intellectualism and impersonalism in our relation to God (4, 9), artificiality in preaching, not drawing on the richness of Scripture (2, 6-8), elimination of lay ministry (9), and poor theological analyses and evaluations of the church (10).

So I must render a negative verdict on this book, though commending the author’s passion for the purity of the church and for the gospel. In doing this, I must disagree with many friends and respected colleagues, who have commended this volume lavishly. They should have known better.

HT: Z

Is Wrath an Attribute of God? Part II

Perhaps it would be even more beneficial to go beyond the Aristotelian distinction and distinguish between God’s essence and attributes (the necessary essentials in contrast to those predicates, though contingent are still attributive). It has been agreed that no element of God is divisible from the host of other characteristics which his being and nature entail. In light of the following statement by Heinrich Heppe, it may seem like theological double-talk to some when distinctions are being made between the attributes. He states, “the divine attributes are not something different from the nature and existence of God, so that the latter may be thought of as distinct from the former. … Rather the attributes of God are the divine nature itself in its relation to the world.”[1]

The danger in categorizing God’s attributes apart from his essence is two-fold. First, there is the temptation to ascribe every attribute to God’s immutable essence and consequently creating a God who is unknowable, unfathomable and ineffable.[2] Such an approach leads to the via negativa where nothing positive can be said of him, but only those characteristics which he is not. Second, some scholars have conceptualized God as one who capriciously utilizes a single quality in each response to his creation. This touches on the discussion of a singular fundamental attribute which was noted earlier as an improper assertion in theology proper. God never acts apart from the wholeness and unity of his very character and nature. “…[T]hese are not to be separated but to be celebrated in their indivisible unity.”[3]

Nevertheless, it still seems helpful to perceive the difference in the characteristics of what the divine nature is in itself and how the divine nature in itself relates to creation. Although the above distinction (essence and attribute) would be an adequate distinction, it seems to be less helpful in that it creates a harder distinction between essence and attributes than the common division of an attribute and property. It is as if attributes derive from his essence whereas properties emanate from his essence – of which his attributes constitute. Therefore, the Aristotelian distinction will be advocated simply because it stresses that attributes are what constitute the essence of God. From this intricate and incomprehensible mak-up we perceive certain properties that derive from his attributes – the essence of God and who he really is.

Now turning the discussion to address the topic at hand, the question surrounds the classification of God’s wrath. Is wrath an attribute of God? Carson states, “… God wrath is not arbitrary but is the willed and principled response (however affective) of his holiness when it confronts the rebellion of his creatures, not least those of his creatures who have entered into covenant with him.”[4] Earlier he remarked, “… as God’s wrath reflects God’s holiness, it is grounded in the very Godness of God.”[5] Wrath seems to be a “reaction of God” rather than a principled fundamental of his Being.[6] It is his response because of his holiness and love.

A danger in not ascribing wrath as an attribute of God is pointed out against those who do not perceive the objective reality of God’s fierce and terrible wrath. Although it is argued in this presentation that wrath should not be qualified as an attribute proper, but as a property, this in no way intends to minimize or diminish the absolute, horrific, objective reality of God’s wrath. Berkhof, Shedd and Reymond all categorize the wrath of God under retributive justice or the infliction of penalties.[7] Again, wrath is a property that is sourced in the goodness (i.e. righteousness) and love of God. Wrath is necessary. But the necessity of God’s wrath is dependent upon the reality of his essential composition and constituent nature.

By not labeling wrath as an attribute does not deny the absolute necessity of divine justice. It simply demonstrates that in eternity past wrath was not necessary in the eternal Trinitarian Godhead, whereas love and holiness have eternally characterized the intrinsic nature of God. Is wrath then an attribute of God? This perspective is persuaded that, no, the wrath of God is not an attribute but a property. This conclusion is based on the definition given above which seems to best handle the Scriptural data and inferences. As Frame has rightly stated, “God’s wrath is nevertheless an outworking of his love.”[8]

---

[1] Heinrich Heppe, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson, Reformed Dogmatics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), 57, quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 40.

[2] Bloesch, God the Almighty, 43. The Bible is replete with anthropomorphic features and personal names of God. YHWH is a noetic God. The Bible’s intention is not to list or categorize the attributes of God. Rather they are comments from historical perspectives which give the readers a mere glimpse into the incomprehensible reality of God – who he is and what he does.

[3] Ibid., 41.

[4] D. A. Carson, ed. Bruce L. McCormack, “The Wrath of God” Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), [37-63], 51. Emphasis original.

[5] Ibid., 49.

[6] Bloesch, God the Almighty, 142.

[7] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), II:75, W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Third Ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 295, Robert L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Second Ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 196-197.

[8] Frame, The Doctrine of God, 468. Love displayed in jealousy, results in wrath. Regardless of the discussion as to which fundamental attribute does wrath stem from, may the reader be reminded that it is sourced in the unification of his nature and intrinsic character. Although wrath may be stemmed primarily from his love, goodness, and/or holiness, it is nevertheless grounded in all his necessary attributes.

Is Wrath an Attribute of God? Part I

Such a question compels the responder to describe what is meant by an “attribute.” From there the receiver must determine whether or not wrath is an essential attribute or merely a consequential or derivative attribute (or as Feinberg refers to as an “accidental” predicate).[1] If wrath is simply an accidental predicate is it even legitimate or helpful to refer to it as an attribute? Once an adequate description of an attribute is properly laid out, the responder can then address whether or not wrath can be ascribed to God, let alone be attributed to him.

An attribute will be defined in this presentation as a property that is inherent in one’s essential makeup and constituent nature.[2] Frame explains attributes as those defining qualities that are necessary and therefore intrinsic to someone or something (in the case of this discussion all references are being made to God) and not contingent.[3] In simple terms attributes tell us “who God really and truly is.”[4]

Before further elucidation is presented concerning an attribute let it be stated that one must acknowledge the breadth of the attributive scope. An attribute in a general, all-inclusive sense can be used to describe any property or quality in relation to God. Conversely, an attribute in a limited sense refers to only those predicates that define God’s essence and nature.

For the remainder of this particular discussion, only those qualities that define and constitute the very essence and nature of God will be referred to as attributes. Those predicates that merely describe a Scriptural quality in regards to God’s relational activity will be referred to as properties. Reasons for this will be discussed below. Therefore, this presentation will use key words such as, “essential, defining, natural, and necessary” in relation to God’s attributes. Those words that are key in reference to the properties of God will be referred to as “accidental, contingent, relational, optional, and free.”

Attributes used in the broad and general sense seem to cloud the intention of clarity within this particular discussion. A narrower view of attributes seems to provide a distinction which offers a more helpful solution to the entire laborious discussion concerning how theologians categorize the breadth of God’s attributes. Those familiar with the discussion understand the problems that surround the often-times untidy categorizations of the attributes (communicable and incommunicable, transcendence and immanence, active and passive, etc.).[5]

After moving from Scripture to theology it seems clear that if one decides to label all of God’s Scriptural qualities as attributes, than he cannot grant that all attributes are of equal consequence. Because some thing can be attributed to God, such an attributive thing does not necessitate it to be inherent to one’s essential makeup and constituent nature. So who decides which attributes are more intrinsic to God’s nature? Who determines that not all the attributes are equal? In God’s eternally self-existent state did wrath, grace, and mercy constitute his essential being? Since this broad application attribute lends to confusion, the limited and narrow description of an “attribute” seems to be the most helpful definition.

John Feinberg initially defines an attribute in the broad sense. He states, “In speaking of someone’s or something’s attributes, we refer to the characteristics or qualities that express their nature.”[6] Yet he realizes the issues surrounding the broad sense of the word, and so he too turns to the above Aristotelian distinction of the essential and accidental qualities. Feinberg’s conclusion is that those narrowed qualities are the “permanent attributes of God’s very being.”[7] He remarks that they “… are the subject of our discussion of the divine attributes.”[8]

Yet even Feinberg seems to disregard his own distinction between attributes and properties. For example, he lists grace, mercy, and lovingkindness as moral “attributes.” From his statements, “All three members of the Godhead ... are characterized as gracious” and “God is a God of grace” Feinberg concludes that grace constitutes as an attribute of God. The issue arises when he seemingly blurs the distinction when he states, “when we understand this fact [that grace is never owed or earned] about grace, we see how good and loving our God is to grant us grace.”[9] Similarly, in regards to mercy he remarks, “… of course it is an expression of God’s love and goodness.”[10] Then why refer to it as an attribute and not a property?

Wayne Grudem even concedes that although grace, mercy, and patience can be understood as separate attributes of God, they can also be understood as particular examples or relational contingencies within the realm of God’s goodness.[11] Such a concession reveals a seeming distinction or “hierarchy” per se in which not all the “attributes” (as Grudem sees them) appear to hold the same weight.

The concern is that everything in this world in some way, shape or form expresses God’s nature. It is inescapable. Thus, to define all characteristics and qualities as attributes seems unhelpful, because while everything in the world somehow relates to God, not everything is intrinsic to his being. Although the Scriptures never present a list of God’s attributes but rather appeal to a characteristic of God as the foundational source of his relational activity, it can be deduced from one’s movement from Scripture to theology vis-à-vis legitimate and logical interpretation that certain qualities are sourced in the very essence and nature of God. Therefore, it seems advantageous to distinguish between the attributes and properties of God, and not to refer to all of his qualities as attributes.

Negatively, an attribute is something that is non-optional and non-essential. Positively, an attribute is that which is necessary and defining. In addition, attributes pertaining to God never stand alone or are singled out. There is not one fundamental attribute of God that stands as the essence from which all the other attributes derive. Rather the necessary attributes of God coalesce and relate to all the other defining attributes, and from those essential attributes the properties of God find their derivation.

---

[1] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 234.

[2] John Frame’s depiction of an attribute is as follows: “Attributes are the predicates, properties, or qualities ascribed to a substance. Those that define its nature constitute its essence. Others are accidents, which are properties that are not part of the essence and therefore are not necessary to its being” (The Doctrine of God, (Phillipsburg, P&R, 2002), 221), emphasis original.

[3] Ibid., 387.

[4] Ibid., 387.

[5] Thus, when defining the attributes of God the theologian must begin in Scripture, commit to solid exegesis, formulate legitimate hermeneutical premises, conceptualize arguments, test conclusions, all the while examining the logic in the formulation, deduction, implications, and inferences.

[6] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 233.

[7] Ibid., 235.

[8] Ibid., 235.

[9] Ibid., 354.

[10] Ibid., 359.

[11] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 200.

Beat the Gospel into Heads Continually

Tony Reinke posted some insightful comments:

To a group of pastors in London, Tim Keller explained the inner workings of an old Coke machine in his Manhattan apartment building. After inserting the proper coinage, Keller explained, you must then pound the side of the machine with your fist. Then, and only then, would the coins trickle down into the heart of the machine and a Coke would fall into the bottom tray.

Keller takes this metaphor into the pulpit. While preaching, he thinks of his audience as an assembly of Coke machines. His audience needs a little pound on the side of the head to get the truth of the gospel to sink into the heart and to produce spiritual fruit. He laughs when he says this, but the point is true.

Luther knew this centuries ago. He wrote,

“Here I must take counsel of the gospel. I must hearken to the gospel, which teacheth me, not what I ought to do, (for that is the proper office of the law), but what Jesus Christ the Son of God hath done for me: to wit, that He suffered and died to deliver me from sin and death. The gospel willeth me to receive this, and to believe it. And this is the truth of the gospel. It is also the principal article of all Christian doctrine, wherein the knowledge of all godliness consisteth. Most necessary it is, therefore, that we should know this article well, teach it unto others, and beat it into their heads continually.” *

I am thankful to God that I am surrounded by pastors, friends, and a wife who are skilled at swinging the gospel hammer. I’m always in need of it.

So who swings the gospel hammer in your life?

———

* Martin Luther, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Smith, English & Co. 1860), p. 206.

HT: TR

NT Wright on Blogging/Social Media from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Stimulating insights from the Bishop of Durham.

HT: Bill Kinnon

Culver: Christology

While pounding out over 80 pages of Culver’s Christology, I realized out that my reading merely scratched the surface of his 200+ page discourse. Culver’s presentation is quite thorough and at times excessively prolix, but overall his stuff is solid. Due to the size and amount of data, I did not cover a lot of his Christology. So the part which I got through I did not have any concerns. My comments will be brief and mostly positive.

In Appendix II (457) Culver states his “principles for writing about Christology.” His intent in his systematic is to present a thorough examination of orthodox teaching rather than an apologetic. Therefore, he does not continually present opposing views, and if he does mention them rarely will he comprehensively “advertise” their arguments. He simply presents their views/errors that are pertinent to the discussion and moves on.

Not surprisingly, Culver (like Shedd) argues that Christ coupled and united with a new human nature and not a new person (472), thus denouncing any Nestorian tendencies. He (like Warfield, unlike Grenz) views the Virgin Birth as “indispensable” and therefore vital for doing Christology. His eight points on the “practical importance and values of the VB” were helpful although I felt his first three (especially his third) points were weak if not unnecessary. I understand the arguments of those who want to “drop” the VB as essential to Christology, I just do not see the benefits.

A Tribute to My Father

Today as I reflect upon Father’s Day I am grateful to God for the absolute blessing of having a godly earthly father. I can truly say that I understand and realize the spiritual adoption/sonship that the Bible so powerfully presents in Romans 8, Galatians 4 and Ephesians 1. As being one who is adopted both spiritually and physically, I genuinely cherish my heavenly and earthly fathers who took someone that nobody wanted and called him their son. That’s my story. My heavenly Father sought me out, called my name, placed me at his side to be his son, and blessed me with every spiritual blessing! I am now his child forever! I have access to his eternal name and the bountiful inheritance which he offers to me! I am his son.

So to my Heavenly Father who has given me spiritual life and upholds my physical life in his power, I give Him my gratitude for my earthly father. There has never been a doubt in my childhood that my Dad loved God and desired to do what his Father wanted in his life. My Dad has always been devoted to God’s service. For the last 30+ years that entailed loving my Mom, raising 5 kids to love and serve the eternal King, committing time and sacrifice to Kingdom work via the Church, and working extremely hard in the vocation which he had been called serve: farming.

So Dad, I’m thankful that there was never a day in my childhood in which I thought you were not committed to your marriage to Mom. I never had reason to doubt that you loved her and were willing to give your life for her, just like Jesus. Dad, I’m thankful that you never talked of leaving Mom or us kids. You were always present in our childhood. You were always there for your wife and your kids. Thank you Dad.

Dad, I’m thankful that you were intentional in your instruction and discipline that we as your children would understand and experience the presence of God and the power of the Gospel!Thank you for deliberately raising us with Jesus as our only source of substance and existence.Dad, thank you for pointing us to the cross at such an early age. Thank you for living a Spirit-led life. Thank you also for placing great emphasis on God’s work here on earth. Thank you for training us to embrace Kingdom work. Thank you for showing us sacrificial service and a love for the local church!

Dad, lastly I want to thank you for being devoted to the call of God upon your life. Never was there a day where you shirked or ran from your responsibilities and the extreme hardships that accompanied it. You taught me how to work. You taught me how to be diligent. You taught me how to be a steward. You taught me how to be responsible. You taught me how to simply live life. You taught me how I could be a child of God.

So Dad, today is Father’s Day, and I want to wish you the happiest, joy-filled Father’s Day ever.As I sit here and type over a tear-stained keyboard, I cannot express to you and to the Lord of how thankful I am to have an earthly father like you. Looking back at all the bumps in the road, I can truly say that if I could be half the man that you are I would be absolutely thrilled! Dad, thank you for everything! Thank you for your life, your love, your devotion!

Thank you Dad. I love you! Happy Father’s Day!

Your Son

Reymond ~ Christology

(623-702)

I appreciated Reymond’s presentation concerning the “major revision” in Christian thought of the cross work of Jesus Christ. His argument concerning the “God-ward reference” of the cross work was helpful, but in a few areas I am needing refinement of thought, so maybe you guys can help clarify those areas.

First, (in accordance with the previous discussion concerning Reymond’s overstatement in regards to reconciliation) I question the legitimacy of Reymond’s use of aorist tense in the 4 passages on reconciliation (643-650). I understand that the aorist can be and often is used “punctiliarly.” I recognize that Paul uses it in reference to the cross work which was an “accomplished fact.” However, does the aorist in reference to the -allasso verbs demand “a past, objective, and forensic event” and never “a subjective ongoing operation in men’s hearts”? (647) Is he freighting the aorist with more than it was intended? I lose him when he states, “Such a change of attitude clearly can be true only of God and only with reference to the elect since most men continue in their enmity toward God” (647).

Second, in his treatment of Eph. 2:14-17 he remarks, “…clearly it is God’s enmity which Paul says…” (649). I am having a hard time seeing the “clarity” amidst his “God-ward reference” presupposition.

Third, should we even answer the question “to whom was Christ’s death as a ransom paid?” (657) God paid God a ransom?

Lastly, footnote 25 on 692-93, Reymond seems to reject the God has two wills. I disagree with Reymond that view projected by Murray “imputes irrationality to God.”

Who do you say that I AM?

Great post from Kevin DeYoung. I too often find myself living as if Jesus Christ is someone other than "the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Hermeneutical Spiral ~ Chapter 1

Osborne kicks off his comprehensive work in Biblical interpretation by devoting the first chapter to the discussion of context. The five chapters under the rubric of general hermeneutics deal with the respective topics accordingly: context, grammar, semantics, syntax, and historical and cultural backgrounds. The first chapter dealing with context is foundational. Without it the subject matter becomes absolutely meaningless.

Osborne divides his chapter into three key components within the subject of context. He begins by briefly examining the historical context of a biblical book. He encourages the use of commentaries, OT/NT Introductions, as well as reference works (i.e. dictionaries and encyclopedias). These works are all helpful in gathering the “preliminary data.” He stresses that these are not authoritative or final, but are merely helps and guides which aid the interpreter in understanding the ancient setting and milieu. The goal in the historical study is to grasp the authorship, date, audience, and intent of the biblical book. The historical context acts as a “filter” in which the text must be sifted through.

The logical context is the second component which Osborne observes, and the bulk of his chapter is spent discussing this most basic factor. An inductive study of a biblical book requires that the interpreter 1) studies the book as a whole and 2) diagrams the paragraphs within the book. After an elementary and inspectional perusal of the book has been read and the paragraphs within have been ascertained, a more thorough examination of those paragraphs must follow. Because the paragraph is essential to the flow and development of thought within a book, Osborne gives three stages in which the interpreter should read the paragraphs in order to determine the overall purpose of the book.

In studying the book as a whole Osborne first encourages the reader to skim through the paragraphs while taking notes in order to gain a big picture idea. Second, after charting through the text, the reader must then scrutinize the breaks in pattern or thought. Repetition and progression are key, and the greater the reader’s ability to highlight development and replication, the greater his understanding of the original intent. Third, Osborne promotes the subdividing of major sections within a unit of thought. This step regresses back from the first two steps and broadens the scope beyond the paragraph. Basically, the last step aids the reader by utilizing the data from the first two steps and stepping back in order to see how the patterns fit into the overall structure of the book.

Once the overall structure is established Osborne moves from studying the whole to examining the parts. Of course, the paragraph is where he begins, and he gives various methods of diagramming a paragraph (eg. grammatical, phrase or sentence flow, block, etc.). He prefers the block diagram simply for its ease and function. Although it is not as detailed as other methods, block diagramming helps “visualize” the possible flow of thought rather than rigidly “deciding” the details of the text.

Determining between the major and minor clauses is absolutely essential. A firm understanding of conjunctions (coordinating and subordinating) is also vital. Osborne’s healthy observation is right on when he points out two caveats when diagramming. First, he again emphasizes that diagramming is merely “preliminary;” it is not final. Second, the syntactical relationships within the text “aid” the reader in determining the patterns and breaks, but they do not always determine them automatically. He emphasizes that when the finer elements of exegesis are employed, the diagram must always be subject to revision.

The third and final major component in his chapter on context is the rhetorical or compositional patterns in communication. He refers to this as the “macro level of the organizational pattern” of a text. The grammar, semantics, and syntax he refers to as the “micro” level because of their more detailed structure. Osborne lists five rhetorical categories or patterns: 1) collection relations (repetition), 2) cause-effect and problem-solution, (question-answer, purpose, result, substantiation), 3) comparison (interchange, similarities/contrasts), 4) description (continuation, extension, summation, inclusio, chiasm), and 5) shifts in expectancy (climax, cruciality, omission).

Overall, this chapter on context sets the foundation for the rest of Osborne’s work. For him, rhetoric is different from genre studies in that the latter is peripheral to the communication process. His method of ascertaining the big picture first, through the examination of major structural patterns and breaks is crucial. Too often preachers and theologians stay in the minutiae or the micro-level, and they end up missing the main point of the authorial intent simply because they seldom or at times never step back and observe the macro level.

Shedd's Christology

Here are a few of my comments from Shedd's Dogmatic Theology from this past weeks perusal.

Shedd’s theanthropic presentation of Jesus Christ is thorough and stimulating. The concepts that heightened interest in my reading are as follows.

Shedd argues that the Incarnation had to happen with the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, the Logos (615-616). He argues, “The Godhead did not become incarnate,” and he seemingly leans incautiously towards Sabellianism when he remarks that, “the essence in all three modes [of the Godhead] did not become incarnate.” Hypothetically, what would the ramifications be if the Father or the Spirit incarnationalized? I am still giving that concept more thought (see supplement 5.1.1 {641}). Is OT prophecy the only grounds that the hypostasis occurred singularly with the Logos (Jn 1:14) and not trinally with Godhead? Or is there other reasons?

His discussion concerning Christ being a divine person who took on a (not the) human nature is interesting (626-33). Shedd distinguishes between “nature” and “person.” He argues that a nature can exist without being “personalized.” The sperma of Heb 2:26, Rom 1:3, and Gen 3:15 which the Logos took on was a human nature “individualized,” and not a person. He thus avoids Nestoranian tendencies.

The question Shedd raises as to why Christ could not be peccable and impeccable (since he is both finite and infinite, passible and impassible, impotent and omnimpotent, ignorant and omniscient) is insightful (661). Due to the structure of his person, Shedd attempts to philosophically support Christ’s impeccability.

Lastly, his distinction between the “sinful” and “innocent” temptations (supported by Acts 8:21-22), and his dichotomy between “seduction” and “trial” (in James 1:14 coupled with Heb 4:15) are ingenious. See supplement 5.5.3 on pg. 671.

Grenz: Christology

From the outset Grenz’s theological/confessional grid is seen. The “community” pervades his presentation and controls his Christology. Grenz is sympathetic to liberal evangelical theology. His supportive penchants towards modernism’s ideologies can be seen throughout his presentation (I have only highlighted a few).

For example, Grenz attempts to coalesce the Christ of faith to the Jesus of history in order to affirm the assertion that Jesus is Divine. He argues that Jesus’ claims alone are not sufficient to serve as “the definitive historical foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (256), nor is the resurrection as an “isolated event” capable of forming the foundation for our initial assertion (259). Agreed. He continues in his rhetoric to contend that in order to affirm the deity of Jesus one must take the claims of Jesus coupled with his resurrection as the “historical foundation” by which such an affirmation can be upheld. Where Grenz’s liberal sympathies appear is where Jamie already pointed out on (255). He disavows Biblical inerrancy and its ability to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by modern higher criticism. His logic breaks down when he emphasizes the naivety in accepting the NT historical claims (255), but then turns around to support the historicity of the resurrection by ironically citing, NT claims (257-259). Interestingly enough much of his support for the “dimensions of the history of Jesus [that] form the historical givens” (261) he finds in the NT.

Another example is his interesting 3+ page discussion of Jesus’ relationship to women. Such a topic is not common in evangelical S.T. Of course the egalitarian/complementarian debate continues to rage between the evangelical liberals and conservatives. I understand his premise that Jesus is the “universal human.” I simply find this insertion interesting.

Lastly, while the virgin birth may not be the “necessary foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (322) the incarnation (as set forth in the NT) is dependant upon the virgin birth. Though the VB may not “support the entire weight of our incarnational Christology” it does seem to be Christologically “indispensable” in regards to the union of the divine and human. Grenz's casual treatment of the VB is indicative of my initial statement.

Alexandrian Hermeneutics

INTRODUCTION

The city of Alexandria was probably the most important city for the rise of Christianity in Egypt.[1] It was a significant city culturally, socially, politically, economically, and scholastically. This northern port city was strategically located and became the most influential city-center in Egypt. Its prominence attracted various ethic groups from across the vast Roman empire in early church history. The city of Alexandria saw a large influx of Jews stemming from the Diaspora. Being the second largest city of the empire, this commercially iconic city was the seedbed for culture, scholarship, and the academy particularly of Hellenistic, Jewish, and later Christian thought.

This post is a brief examination of the history and hermeneutics of the Alexandrian School as well as the proponents and influences that largely shaped and contributed to its perpetuation. Some brief examples of biblical texts will also be examined. This paper will now examine the chief proponents and authorities that began to shape the biblical hermeneutics in the second and third centuries of the early church.

ALEXANDRIAN PROPONENTS

In the late second century, a catechetical school began to arise in the diverse cultural milieu of Alexandria. The origination of this school of thought is commonly credited to the scholar, Pantaenus. Pantaenus is largely overshadowed by his main pupil, Clement of Alexandria, who was succeeded by his well known student, Origen. These three men are frequently referred to as the chief proponents of the Alexandrian catechetical school.

Of the three scholars previously mentioned Pantaenus is least known. The data on his life and influence is scarce. Little is known about this scholar, but the fruit of his work is recognized in his successors. His student, Clement is considered the “first Christian scholar.”[2] Much of his life is also unknown. He died somewhere between 211 to 216. Clement was a brilliant scholar. He was well versed in the classical, philosophical (particularly Platonic), and Christian literature of his day. Roger Olson likens Clement as “the prototype of the broad, liberally minded, intellectual and philosophical Christian theologian who seeks to synthesize Christian belief with culture as much as possible.”[3]

Clement attempted to coalesce the Christian faith with the culture of his day. He held a high view of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic teachings. He employed Greek philosophy to aid him in his interpretation of Scripture. For him God’s word was intelligible and therefore logic and reason would aid the reader in his understanding of the text. Five of his writings exist today and are largely instructive in nature. Clement fiercely opposed the heretical teaching of his day: Gnosticism. He argued against Gnosticism’s insistent ideology of dualism. For him the faith of man had precedent over knowledge.

As Pantaenus is overshadowed by Clement, so too is Clement overshadowed by his student, Origen. Persecution raged in the church of Alexandria during the early third century. The violence forced Clement to leave the city in 202 and it was during this time that Origen succeeded Clement in his position at the Alexandrian school. Origen’s life is probably best remembered in the traditional account of his rescue as a sixteen-year-old by his mother. Later in life Origen wished to be ordained, but due to various speculative reasons he fell out of favor with the bishop of Alexandria and his request was denied. Undeterred, Origen went to the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was ordained and never returned to his hometown of Alexandria. Origen died a martyr’s death. He was tortured and executed during the middle of the third century during the persecution of the Roman emperor, Decius.

His academic and scholarly career were marked by his incredible writing ability. Approximately 800 manuscripts derived from his hand. His most well known works were his disputation against the Roman philosopher, Celsus titled, Contra Celsus and his theological treatise, De Principiis. Gerald Bray states, “By any standard of measurement, Origen was the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity.”[4]

ALEXANDRIAN HERMENEUTICS

The Alexandrian school is characterized by their allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Their understanding of Scripture was combined with Greek philosophical influences. Clement employed three main approaches to interpreting Scripture.[5] He saw that the literal aspect of the text brought out the historical and doctrinal features. Typology yielded the prophetic interpretation, and allegory gave the spiritual or mystical meaning of Scripture. For example in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, Clement allegorized the robe which the son upon his return received from his father as immortality. His sandals represented the upward progress of the soul, and the fattened calf depicted Christ as the Christian’s spiritual sustenance.[6]

Origen had a similar approach. His hermeneutic corresponded with the triad found in human beings – the body, soul, and spirit. His triadic hermeneutic featured the literal (bodily), moral (soulish), and spiritual (mystical).[7] Origen allegorically appealed to texts such as 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 10:1-4; Gal. 4:21-31; Eph. 5:31-32.[8] For example he interpreted the account with Lot and his daughters in Gen 19:30-38 as follows:

…the passage has a literal sense…, but its moral meaning is that Lot represents the rational human mind, his wife the flesh inclined to pleasures, and the daughters vainglory and pride. Applying these three elements yields the spiritual…meaning: Lot represents the OT Law, the daughters represent Jerusalem and Samaria, and the wife represents the Israelites who rebelled in the wilderness.[9]

In regards to a literal interpretation some of the commands and imperatives in the Scriptures were helpful and instructive. Taken at this level, a literal interpretation was useful for the Christian. Clement viewed literal interpretation of the Bible as a beginning point for immature Christians.[10] The moral level was found in examples given in the narrative portions of the text. The ethical paradigms exemplified in these narratives were to be seen as underlying the literal level. Passages that encouraged moral living in contrast to the world were considered part of the rational or moral level. According to this interpretation, all texts contain a mystically deep and spiritual meaning. It was up the mature believer to decipher such a meaning. In Alexandrian hermeneutics the spiritual meaning is superior to the literal.[11]

Several contributing factors challenged the early proponents to adopt an allegorical approach to Scripture. One of the dynamics that compelled this school to emphasize and at times impose an allegorical or spiritual meaning into the text was because of the negative view by the pagans concerning the validity and legitimacy of the biblical text. They felt constrained to safeguard the Bible against the pagan’s attacks on the seeming obvious and ridiculous accounts of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic teachings. Allegory seemed like a legitimate technique to ward off the assaults and criticisms of those who attempted to deny the authority of the Scriptures. This however was not the primary motivation of the Alexandrian school; rather this method was viewed as having “basic theological significance,”[12] and this significance became the principal motivation.

Another reason for the use of allegory was to alleviate the tension of the Bible’s divine nature and its humanity.[13] Origen attempted answer the myriad of questions that face the interpreter. How are the very words of the Divine interpreted and applied to the finite? Since God is absolute and infinite and mankind’s situations are relative, how does his law relate to human events? How does the interpreter handle the issue of literal versus figurative? What is the essence of allegory, typology, and analogy? What is the relationship of the two Testaments? For Origen the way of allegory seemed to assuage much of the tension.

The Jewish misunderstanding of Jesus Christ gave the proponents of the allegorical approach yet another reason. Origen perceived that if the Jews of Christ day misunderstood the prophecies about the coming Messiah from a literal hermeneutic than a meaning deeper than the literal must be veritable.[14] Although he did not detect the difference between the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah and allegorical interpretation, he nonetheless felt the tension of a purely “literal” interpretation.

CONCLUSION

It seems apparent that Origen, Clement, and church fathers alike understood a literal hermeneutic as “literal.” By not perceiving a “straightforward reading,” they failed to see a hermeneutic that considered genre and figurative language.[15] For them the literal should be considered, but the spiritual must be ascertained. However, we can hardly point fingers. The church fathers were committed to the texts of Scripture and their entire purpose was purely of a practical nature.[16] Not that this in anyway justifies their actions; nevertheless God in his divine providence orchestrated men with devotion to him in the molding of Christian theology. David Dockery states, “It is clear that the Alexandrians lived in a complex hermeneutical environment. Out of this environment Clement began to forge a hermeneutical methodology.”[17]

The Alexandrian method of interpretation had positive and negative affects upon the church.[18] Positively, it always took the text of Scripture to a spiritual level.[19] For these men the Bible was more than a moral storybook. It was God’s Word. However, the negative side was also inherent this spiritual reading. Allegory tended to take the Scriptures out of history. Unguarded and often negligent interpretations would result, and man’s “spiritually” subjective intuitions gave precedent over proper interpretational methods.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Clinton E., “Centers for Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Bray, Gerald, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Dockery, David S., “The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation.” Faith and Mission vol. 10:1 (Fall 1992): 3-34.

Goldsworthy, Graeme, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004.

Knight, Jonathan M., “Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Olson, Roger E., The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)

---

[1] Clinton E. Arnold, “Centers for Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 149.

[2] Jonathan M. Knight, “Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 37.

[3] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 85.

[4] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 83.

[5] Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Interpretation, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 91.

[6] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004), 38-39.

[7] Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 106.

[8] Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 55.

[9] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 39.

[10] Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 90-91.

[11] Ibid., 91.

[12] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 51.

[13] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 102.

[14] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 51.

[15] Ibid., 52.

[16] Ibid., 54.

[17] David S. Dockery, “The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation,” Faith and Mission, vol. 10:1 (Fall 1992): 14.

[18] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 103.

[19] Dockery remarks, “The spiritual sense served an apologetic purpose against the Gnostics and other challengers to the orthodox mainstream, but primarily it served a pastoral purpose to mature the soul” (“The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation,” 17).