Covenant vs. Law/Gospel: Why Calvin Rocks and Luther Doesn't
I have been thinking about this Covenant hermeneutic vs. the Law/Gospel hermeneutic due to some discussions with a fellow ordinand here from the States (check out John Zahl's blog for the most distrubing song ever!) who is totally committed to Luther's method of sundering the Bible into Law and Gospel. Rough and ready definition of both:
"Have you accepted me into your heart yet?"
Covenant Theology: the Bible is made up of five covenants which hold the whole story together. First covenant to Adam and Eve, then after fall there is the Noahic covenant for stability (no more total death!), the Abrahamic covenant for setting up a nation and people of God, the Mosaic covenant giving these people a divine law and blessings with a land, the Davidic covenant giving this nation a king (royal covenant) and then finally the New Covenant establishing God's rule through his own kingship and redemption in Jesus Christ.
"How can I marry a nun..."
Law/Gospel: the Bible is made up of the two parts, the Old Testament (or most of it) is a preperation for Jesus Christ, the Law condemns people of their sin and forces them to see the need for a mediator in Christ. The Law forcefully proves to everyone that they can't earn God's favour by works, they need grace. Then the New Testament brings the good news in Jesus and he fulfills everything and releases people from that horrible and condemning Law. Free at last!
So here are three problems I find with Law/Gospel:
1. If the Law was supposed to point everyone to a Christ figure, how is it that no one figured this step out? I mean, don't you think after more than 2,000 years of works righteousness someone would have said "We need something totally different?"
2. More importantly, does anyone really think God had the old covenant around for such a long time just to show everyone they couldn't fulfill it? I mean, was he waiting around to see if someone might actually pull it off, then one day decided to give it a go himself?
3. So now that Christ abolished the Law, does that mean I can do whatever the heck I want? I mean, it is all fuliflled right? Nothing left but historical information, right? "Sin boldly?"
So the whole Law/Gospel thing just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I think it makes the Bible too discontinuous, too ridiculous, and certainly doesn't much sense of the concept of Messiah as King. What is Jesus ruling over? He abolished his kingdom on the cross, right? Covenant Theology seems to hold everything together so much better, the Bible is the working out of God's intention to rule the earth as he does the heavens (read the first part of the Lord's prayer again). I think it is great to be free from any burden of the Law for salvation, but it seems that the whole idea of salvation by works is being questioned by Wright and others anyways. I mean, what part of works was the covenant of Abraham? The Old Testament is screaming grace the whole time, not condemnation. I think there is far too much continuity between Jesus and the Old Testament to say he did something so radical as Luther suggested. Think about it.
posted by Hans-Georg Gadamer @ 12:57 pm
24 comments
24 Comments:
(1) The sweet thing about Law/Gospel is that it lets the discontinuities and inconsistencies in the Bible play a role--namely, that of discontinuities and inconsistencies that are ultimately reconciled by the fact that Christ superceded and abolished the law.
(2) Covenant theology fails because the Bible was NOT written by one author as The Book of Five Covenants--it was composed over thousands of years and redacted along the way. Seeing covenants as ONE theme among others is perfectly acceptable--seeing the Bible as primarily the story of five covenants is wrong.
Let me respond to your objections:
1. If the Law was supposed to point everyone to a Christ figure, how is it that no one figured this step out? I mean, don't you think after more than 2,000 years of works righteousness someone would have said "We need something totally different?"
What, a committee of Jews was supposed to get together and decide to forsake the law and the orthodoxy of the God who had smitten everyone in favor of sweet grace? I don't think so. The prophets came along and tried to refine the message that the leaders thought they knew so well (cf. Amos's radical message about the poor), but it took Christ coming and rocking everyone's face off for them to figure it out, and even then they didn't.
2. More importantly, does anyone really think God had the old covenant around for such a long time just to show everyone they couldn't fulfill it? I mean, was he waiting around to see if someone might actually pull it off, then one day decided to give it a go himself?
No, certainly Christ was part of the plan from the beginning; we don't want to say that God was waiting in heaven to see what would happen.
3. So now that Christ abolished the Law, does that mean I can do whatever the heck I want? I mean, it is all fulfilled right? Nothing left but historical information, right? "Sin boldly?"
How does Christ fulfilling the law so that we don't have to entail total sweet sinning? All it means is that we don't have to fulfill the law--we still have to follow Christ. GOSPEL is a new bag, a new call, different from law in its fulfillment, but still a call nonetheless, just like law.
The problem with law/gospel is when its proponents take it too far. Here's Walther's 1st thesis:
"The doctrinal contents of the entire Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, are made up of two doctrines differing fundamentally from each other, viz., the Law and the Gospel."
You'll note that nowhere did I say that law and gospel are two doctrines differing fundamentally from each other. They are connected; they involve following after God. Elevating the law/gospel distinction to the ONLY lens through which we see the Bible and Christianity is the same mistake that Calvinists make when they covenantalize everyone and their mom. Using law/gospel as ONE way (and maybe the best way) to present the history of the Bible and the Christ's message of redemption is proper. Saying "The OT and the NT present two fundamental, incompatible gods and two fundamental, incompatible messages" is not.
Charles - I think your points are valid if we all assume your core presupposition, which is:
(1) the Bible was not written by one author - it was composed and redacted by many along the way.
Okay, on face value this is totally true and nothing false lies there within. I would affirm both of those statements. BUT I think you really mean something else here, namely that the Bible is not an overarching and coherent narrative directed by the Holy Spirit and co-authored by men. IF we assume that there is some plan of God floating around and that the "writers" of the Bible gave their best stab at writing it down, but had lots of their own WRONG conceptions included, then I think covenant fails.
BUT - as evangelicals I think we all affirm inspiration, in different forms, but nonetheless that God has super-intended the writing of the Scriptures. I think this inspiration/authority is what makes the Bible so powerful. If it is just a collection of men giving a go at writing about the heavenly council, then there is no reason other than personal affinity to it that makes the Scripture compelling. But certainly you wouldn't want to affirm this, would you?
Of course the NT follows on the same thing as the OT does in your view - if the OT was totally incoherent, then why is the NT any more? I think this is the problem with law/gospel because it lets Luther start demanding that books be taken out of the canon - just because he doesn't like them. What a load of crap!
So I think it comes down to presuppositions. If you see the Bible as totally inspired (dude?) then there are not the incredibly "inconsistencies" you mention because it is one unfolding revelation about how YHWH deals with his people, not just some silliness and then the real deal, and then what?
If on the other hand you see the Scriptures as essential a human only (note the only - we need to affirm BOTH) then of course some stuff was "wrong." But I really challenge this presupposition first before you get rid of covenant. Plus covenant makes sense of the whole Bible whereas Law/Gospel does great for individualistic guilt ridden westerners but has almost nothing to say to the majority of the people of God - the Jews first century and before.
It would be interesting to see what j. morg has to say because I am pretty sure he is a covenant man and yet does not hold to the same view of inspiration that I do. Literary method maybe?
Are there other options than these two? You didn't imply there weren't - I'm just wondering.
As I've said before, I think the cannonization process has HUGE implications on how we're to read and interpret the Bible. From the little I've read, Luther and Marcion had tons in common. Marcion was too Pauline for his own good, or for the nearly Jewish Jerusalem "Christians", so he was put down and kicked out and labeled a heretic. It's partially Marcion's love of Paul that lead the Catholic church to focus so much on Peter instead, and only the Roman destruction of the temple and Jerusalem that lead to the down fall of the nearly-Jewish brand of Christianity and the rise of the Pauline Christianity we've inhereted across the centuries.
The point is that several key historic events had everything to do with what books are in the Bible and how we interpret them. Barring the "God is using history to craft his book" thesis, I reject the notion that scripture is entirely coherent.
At the same time, I reject the idea that there was no valid system of spiritual salvation and meaning in place before Jesus time. As a fulfillment of the law, Jesus comes to bring the law in it's fullest fullness - not to supercede or abolish it, but to make it real, liveable, doable. Jesus adamantly points out that he has not come to do away with anything - the law cannot be forsaken or ignored, in the absolute sense. Practically speaking, we do not follow the letter of the law anymore. It's the Jeremiah covenant: he is our God, we are his people, and his law is written into our hearts.
So while I can't see the Bible as one consistent narrative about the developing covenants God drafted to pave the way for Christ, I also can't see the new and old testaments as contrary and opposed.
I think the Bible is a series of divinely inspired glimpses into God's involvement with man through the Jews across human history. It is a collection of fragments, sometimes inconsistent, often incomplete, but enough to answer the important questions of who God is, how God is (good), where our dealings with him came from, and where they will go.
Redness - I like your sentiments about the Bible being in some senses "incomplete." There is certainly more to know, but God has decided not to reveal it to us at this point (barring the "prophetic gifts view of Pentacost" which I am dealing with interestinly here). Two issues though, although not in any way against what you mention, just further notice.
1. Certainly we live in "Pauline" Christianity, but I think it is erroneous to say there was a big difference between Petrine and Pauline doctrine. I think in Acts you can see the two are quite close to each other, and the differences in the letters are certainly a demonstration of the different audiences more than the different views. One of my profs here (David Wenham) is an expert in this area and is vigorous about keeping Paul and Peter close to "original" Christianity (labelling the others "extra crispy" I suppose).
2. Although the Bible is a wonderful book with so much going on in it (there is more than enough in there for everyone it seems), I do think that when you read the whole Scripture with an eye towards the covenant mediation of God's Law to his chosen people and the outward spread of the kingdom of God you will find there are almost no passages that don't fit this theme. Not to say that the answer to every question in the Bible is covenant, but it is clearly central in my reading and I think this is more than me just being hyped up on Calvin.
Along with that, the passage in Jeremiah 31 about the "new covenant" (hint?) is totally wrapped up in this. First because it is a prophet speaking, and the main role of the prophets was to be covenant mediators (to let the king know how he was doing in following the covenant stipulations e.g. time for blessings or cursings) and secondly every Jew that heard that passage would have said "YHWH is writing The Law in our hearts" not some totally new grace in Jesus thing. We read it through the lens of Jesus and evangelical Christianity, but we need to look at it from the Old Testament side and see what they would have taken it as. It has to make some sense to them and "the Holy Spirit" writing some law on our hearts would not have made any sense to them. But YHWH making the Law (the representation of his character) more clear and internal as opposed to external would have made some sense, even if they didn't know about this Holy Spirit fellow who would apply it.
Are there other hermeneutics out there? Yeah, probably, but I don't know of any two serious reformation ones, which are pretty sweet.
Thanks for your input, hans and redhurt. This is a great thread--I'm surprised more people aren't commenting on it. I have a few more thoughts and some questions.
hans, you wrote:
"I think you really mean something else here, namely that the Bible is not an overarching and coherent narrative directed by the Holy Spirit and co-authored by men. IF we assume that there is some plan of God floating around and that the "writers" of the Bible gave their best stab at writing it down, but had lots of their own WRONG conceptions included, then I think covenant fails."
This is a good piece of writing, because you identify what you think is the case, namely that:
"The Bible is an overarching and coherent narrative directed by the Holy Spirit and co-authored by men."
I'd certainly want to agree with that to some extent--it just doesn't take us very far. The problem I have with it is that it brackets off "the Holy Spirit working in the lives of the people who contributed to the Bible" as some special, sui generis, one-shot dispensation, and as a Lutheran I can't roll with it. Even though the canon is closed, the spirit still needs to be able to work in people's lives in a way at the very least analogous to whatever happened before.
Also,
"There is some plan of God floating around, and the writers of the Bible gave their best stab at writing it down, but had lots of their own WRONG conceptions included."
That's much closer to the truth, in my opinion, but that's not something I would ever say to non-believers in trying to establish the authority of the Bible. So, what I would say would be between "co-authored by the Holy Spirit" and "gave it their best shot but got some stuff wrong." I'll never have any use for "super-intended" or terms like that, but I'll never get all John Spong on you either. I want a healthy, robust, but nuanced and flexible doctrine of inspiration.
"The problem with law/gospel is that it lets Luther start demanding that books be taken out of the canon - just because he doesn't like them."
Well, Luther was wrong to try to go against the authority of tradition and the councils in this case. In other cases, it was good that he went against tradition and authority! What has been passed down to us from the church fathers is our starting point.
I want to make sure that you understand that I was DISAGREEING with the Walther thesis that I cited--I think the OT and NT have different emphases but are fundamentally connected. There are loads of grace in the OT! I just think law/gospel allows our christology to be really radical and really powerful. I hate to get post-modern on you (well, no I don't), but Christ shatters and transcends old categories and makes everything new. Just because his coming was foretold doesn't mean it was predictable.
redhurt, this is really good and very close to what I would want to say if I had to summarize the Bible:
"I think the Bible is a series of divinely inspired glimpses into God's involvement with man through the Jews across human history. It is a collection of fragments, sometimes inconsistent, often incomplete, but enough to answer the important questions of who God is, how God is (good), where our dealings with him came from, and where they will go."
hans, in response to redhurt you wrote:
"You will find there are almost no passages that don't fit the covenant theme."
That's because you're reading everything with your covenant glasses on. =) In the Bible you DO find things that defy a law/gospel hermeneutic--that's why it's just ONE way to present Christ, and not THE way. The important thing is his death and resurrection, not that we get our theme right, right?
Charles - quick comment to the "postmodern" thing. I am sorry to point this out, but you are wearing glasses too! You can't take off glasses without finding another pair on your face, the question is which glasses make the most sense out of what you are looking at. If i look through broken ones or half shaded ones something doesn't quite fit. I am wearing covenant glasses because when I switch back and forth (between LG and C) I find that the covenant ones make more sense of the Scriptures. Does that mean covenant is the best way to read it? Well, I don't know, but it sure holds the whole thing together, and as far as I can see, Jesus really likes the whole thing to be together (cf. Matt 6).
Sceondly quickly: if you are so concerned about different forms of inspiration and work of the Spirit, I think you will either have to become a tongue speaker and charasmatic Christian or deny that any such thing happened in the first century. I think that the Spirit works differently at different points in..."redemptive history." I know you cringe at the phrase, but seriously, don't you think Jesus is doing stuff here? Don't you think that he acts differently at different times and different circumstances?
So I admit that the Spirit works differently today then he did back then, but I don't see that as a problem since I am not running around trying to resurrect people. This would also take into account all the technical jargon...blah blah blah of inspiration which I see no reason to throw away, unless you really want to get revisionist on me!
I think the main thought in my mind is how opposed is L/G to Covenant reading? I think there are fundamental differences and I think that covenant is better for said reasons. The Bible is certainly diverse, but that is no reason to say that the major theme cannot be covenant. My main point is that when you take the Bible on the whole, reading through the lens of covenant theology seems to make more sense of it. You can agree with that statement and still hold your position as long as you admit that for some apriori reason you don't think the Bible should make sense. When you come up with something other than "The Bible can't make sense" let me know.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm certainly no theologian, and my grasp on the contrast between LG and Covenant theology is limited to only to what I can derive from what you've explained here. That being said...
Hans, I agree with you that the covenant theme is prevalent throughout the Bible. I would argue, though, that this is because the concept of "covenant" is central to Judaism and thus Christianity, and that the flow of Biblical verse is often directed by this theme has more to do with it's centricity in Christian doctrine than it being the only proper way to interpret scripture. Do you see what I'm saying? The distinction is subtle. The covenant theme is prevalent in Christian history, so it is in the Bible. It is not necessarily the glasses through which all of the Bible should be read. I certainly would apply it as the feature to provide continuity between Malachi and Matthew, however, so practically I see no difference in how we'd read the bible.
It also seems to me that L/G is very useful as a method of contrasting two covenants - namely the last with Israel and the New. In so much as the Old Testament is a glimpse into the religion of this older covenant, into a life dominated by law, the law/gospel distinction is accurate and very useful.
I feel like this post has about one-tenth the value or importance of my last one. I feel I've lost track of what we're discussing here, what the real distinction between LG and covenant theology is, and so I don't have anything new to say.
Hans, in response to your "Petrine" comment:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been reading recently that Peter was quite inclined to allow Christianity to be re-absorbed by the Jews before Paul showed up on the scene. He was making concessions and submitting his followers to the law, going so far as to refuse to eat with unbelievers, before Paul whipped him into shape. So if by Petrine theology you mean the theology ultimately put forth by Peter, I agree - it's in line with Paul, and I only use the term "Pauline" because Paul's articulation of this theology has been preserved better in our version of the Bible. I'm contrasting Pauline theology with the Judaic Christians, with whome Peter seems to have sympathized early on, who wanted to graft Christianity onto Judaism and diminish it's freeing and universalist aspects.
Redness - excellent insight! I was thinking about that as well. Covenant is not a "way" of reading the Bible per se, it is more of the major theme of history. So we use it to read the Bible because it is so important to the whole story, not as some ad hoc way of making sense of an abstract text. Good clarification!
So I guess the questions remains, is covenant a better way of seeing God's revelation or is it just another way? I think it is opposed to L/G sense it emphasizes the one continuing theme of God's revelation, whereas L/G seems to change mid stream. Subtilties of course, but I think they are very different.
As far as Petrine doctrine goes, good clarification again. My only point is to say that we should not pit Peter vs. Paul like so many revisionists do because it is a false distinction. The only reason they really do it is to discredit "orthodoxy" Christianity (cf. Bart Erhman and co.), so I always want to be wary of oppositional statements. But I certainly think that pre-Cornelius Petrine thought is different than post-Damascus S/Paul thought, just that they both were fairly similiar once they got their differences strightened out. So I think we totally agree on that, I was just warding off revisionist nonsense. Excellent comments!
Also, where is j. morg coming to the covenant rescue?
mp - welcome and glad you stopped by. You make some excellent points. The reformed tradtion does stress God's soviergnty sometimes over against his solidarity, but I think good reformed theologians use both.
In saying that I very much appreciate the "Lutheran" approach of with us always, I think it is necessary and especially a good first way to read the Scripture. What I think the covenant/reformed tradition does really well though is tell you what to do after you have found that Jesus is in you and with you. Are we supposed to sit around and think about him? Are we to carry on with life as normal and then always talk about his presence and forgiveness and grace? The reformed tradition says "Christ frees you from sin and brings you in to the covenant people of God (Lutheran so far), but now since you are part of this people there are certain ways you live (covenant stipulations and such)." So I think the "Lutheran" perspective does a good job of getting you in, but it is the "Calvinist" interpretation which tells you how to live, just like the people of God have always lived WITH the proper covenant adjustments since we are in the New Covenant (the people of God had to make adjustments when they went from Mosaic to Davidic covenant as well). This allows a great continuity with the saints throughout the Church, and we get a much fuller picture of what is going on in Scripture.
So your points are well taken, and I admit the reformed tradition sometime goes straight into living the faith without the strong emphasis on grace in Christ, but I think you need both, especially the covenant scheme if we are truly going to bring the kingdom of God to earth (in Christ).
Hans: I'm still confused about why LG and Covenant hermeneutics are in opposition. It seems foolish to deny that either 1.) the life of characters in the Bible is dominated by the covenant in place during their day and 2.) the law dominates the way the covenant is enforced in the OT, whereas gospel/grace does in the NT. In the old testament, the law IS the covenant, in one form or another, and people remain true to that covenant, experience God, and extend their relationship through him by following and enforcing that law. In the new testament, people participate in the new covenant by spreading the gospel and experiencing the spirit, living and breathing grace and mercy and peace.
So I fail to understand the problem, the disintction, and the opposition. They're both themes in the Bible, sometimes emphasized over each other, often quite intertwined, and neither can be totally ignored.
Hans, I don't want to take this too far, but it's not too cluttered yet, so let's try it. What do you mean by "discredit orthodoxy?" I don't see it as Peter vs. Paul. More as Paul vs. the Jewish church that sought to absorb Christianity, and Peter starting to fall in with them before the two worked things out. And this even isn't a hard opposition, but rather an instance of difference emphasises which would eventually lead to large consequences in either the emergence of Christianity as a universalist religion of grace or it's total reabsorbtion into judaism.
Good Lord! There has been an amazing discussion going on over hear that I didn’t know about! I hope it isn’t too late to put in my two cents. I guess I would just say about the whole C/LG debate that we should make a distinction between “reading the bible” and “doing theology.” I would argue that the first is primarily a historical investigation, while the second is a Christological narrative largely removed from historical concerns.
As for reading the Bible, I think RedHurt got it exactly right:
“I would argue, though, that this is because the concept of ‘covenant’ is central to Judaism and thus Christianity, and that the flow of Biblical verse is often directed by this theme has more to do with it's centricity in Christian doctrine than it being the only proper way to interpret scripture.”
So, Charles, I totally agree with you about how the Scriptures came to be, but I don’t think that rules out a strong Covenant theology in any way. I mean, I think the appropriate way to read the Scriptures is historical-critical. In so doing, however, we realize that the framework on which most Biblical writings are built is this idea of covenant. So long as the authors, the redactors, and the translators were in a culture that primarily, if not exclusively, understood relations (both personal and social) in covenantal terms and that those participants were self-consciously writing in that tradition, we can still be pretty certain that the central theme to the Scriptures – even though collected – is Covenant.
As for doing theology, I think Luther, ironically enough, gives us an account of Christocentric theology that demands a covenantal theology. Again, I think RedHurt nailed this one:
“As a fulfillment of the law, Jesus comes to bring the law in it's fullest fullness - not to supersede or abolish it, but to make it real, livable, doable. Jesus adamantly points out that he has not come to do away with anything - the law cannot be forsaken or ignored, in the absolute sense. Practically speaking, we do not follow the letter of the law anymore.”
If all Revelation is to be interpreted in light of the Cross, it in some sense becomes irrelevant whether or not the authors, redactors, and translators were working under a covenantal framework. So long as Christ explicitly understands Himself in those terms – which I (and apparently RedHurt) think He does – then that requires a reinterpretation of all that came before and a commitment to that understanding for all that comes after. This also helps situation Pauline theology and clarify that debate on this thread. I think that, if this is right, it explains why Paul felt perfectly comfortable reinterpreting the OT in obviously anachronistic terms that Jews flatly rejected (especially considering that he would have probably rejected those very same claims before his “conversion”).
As I understand it – although I haven’t read it myself – Balthasar argues that Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection can be understood like a heavy stone being dropped into a placid pool of water (the water being human history proceeding chronologically): the ripple from that entrance goes in both directions, fundamentally affecting the nature of the future, but also the past. It is in this sense that we can meaningfully talk about redemptive history and use covenant language as Calvin and the Fathers before him did.
RedHurt, I know these questions weren’t directed at me, but I wanted to throw out some things I was thinking about as a response anyway (Hans is free to correct me/rebuke me/respond to your questions differently):
“I'm still confused about why LG and Covenant hermeneutics are in opposition.”
I think that the way they have been cast here, at least explicitly, they are not. The problem is more what was and still largely is implicit in either view. As I see it (in very broad, rough language), the big disagreement comes from understandings of the OT Hebrew theology of redemption/salvation. Law/Gospel theologians tend to emphasize that the OT model was essentially one of works righteousness, whereas the NT model is one of grace. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, tend to emphasize that grace has always been the model of redemption, but was manifest different before Christ than it is now in light of Him. That, in turn, makes a very big difference about how we read the OT and how we understand Jewish theology.
What do you mean by "discredit orthodoxy?"
Bart Ehrman (who I gather Hans dislikes, but who is, in actuality, a very good scholar) writes a lot about heretical – or, in his more sympathetic language, alternative - strains in early Christianity and the ways that the establishment of a Christian orthodoxy created what we now know as Christianity by distorting profoundly the Gospel and selectively representing the teachings common among the early faithful. So, if Paul and the Fathers (and finally the Council at Nicaea) distorted Jesus, then in demonstrating that they were all wrong or at least highly selective/inconsistent historically becomes grounds for them to “discredit” orthodoxy as political or whatever.
I think the distinction between “reading the Bible” and “doing theology” allows us to both appreciate these types of historical critiques as largely accurate with it affecting our theology as orthodox Christians in the least.
Do you have any blank cds? Could I have a few of them? --JAZ
J. Morgs - welcome, sorry you missed out on the initial salvoes but your comments and answers are excellent on the whole! A few comments myself:
1. I think you are totally right about the C/LG distinction and the use of the Old Testament. I think in this debate we have really moved more towards the middle, whereas "real" (?) LG would hold implicitly what you mentioned, OT as Law and NT as Grace (except for James?). So maybe what Charles has is a "semi-LG" hermeneutic, which is also a "semi-C" herm as well. I think that point is settled then. OT is full of grace, in fact everything past Gen 3:15 is grace, coupled with obedience to the Lord in covenant response.
2. I think your historical/theological distinction is interesting and may solve some of the problems we are encountering here, but you know I would not totally go for it. Our theology was founded on a historical understanding of Scripture, so we can't just give that up and say "I don't like how we got it, but it is a nice system." So if covenant is true, it is true insomuch as it is found in Scripture. Call me a fundamentalist (and Karl Barth too, I guess), but you definitely throw out the baby with the bathwater in this case. But I take a more trustworthy reading of the Scriptures, which is very much in line with orthodox Christianity (check out K.A. Kitchen's new book on the reliability of the OT! Awesome!). But I don't think this strand of comment is going to get us anywhere, I am just pointing out that if you want covenant theology then we need to know where we got it from, and that was traditional hermeneutics (Kline and others).
3. Good summary of Bart Ehrman, who I read a ton of during GCC since I wanted to get the other side of the historical Jesus debate. He is a great writer and a nice guy (he emailed me!) but his understanding of the Church is exactly what we need to be concerned about. He discredits orthodoxy by saying it was just a power play that happened to win over against all the other acceptable forms of Christianity (Gnostic, Docetism, Arianism, etc.). This is a position that no serious Christian can accept since it implies that all forms are valid but one happened to get more press and power than the other. I know that sounds like a good concept for postmodern ears, but it is just not acceptable for Christians since we have something called heresy, which is exactly what these other forms were. So again, I know you aren't trying to discredit orthodoxy, but there has always been a push to say that the Church was never unified or had a consensus on what was right (and much of the early Church was divided), but the fact is the Church did make a decision and orthodox belief, which was set down from the beginning in the rule of faith, triumphed whereas the other forms were sent away.
So all in all, J. Morg brings excellent insights to this discussion and my only substantial response/correction/whatever is to say "just go a bit further." But I believe in Biblical inerrancy/total trustworthiness so that kind of forces my hand on the issue. So I am willing to put forth my biases (although I do not think they are unreasonable).
Also, I think the historical-critical method is not the best way of reading the text, although it does a decent job. I was taught the literary method and that really opens up a lot of the narrative stories and makes sense of the OT as well, so I would add that to the mix. There we go.
JZ - no, I can't say I do. Sorry!
Gav - What an incredible deal! I don't need anymore at the moment, but I feel like I shuld buy at least six. Christmas gifts for back in the States?
I don't know, Hans - I think Ehrman might be on to something. Up front, please grant that I have a right to post despite having never read Ehrman and only having read 1 source on Othordoxy in recent history.
The last chpater I "A History of Christianity" that I read ended with a discussion of Augustine. It talks about Augustine's repression of Pelagius and the Donatists. While I'm no expert, the information I was given seems to imply that Pelagius was far more in line with Pauline thinking than Augustine ever was. Augustine persecuted those he perceived as heretics with beatings and torture, and while he wasn't interested in refined violence, he interpreted the verse "compel them to come in" as a liscense for violence against the heterodox. Near the end of his life, we have excellent examplse of him "winning" debates against Pelagians by making crude sexual references to incite riotus mobs. Augustine was very much an early inquisitor, very much out of line with Jesus' teaching, and yet the single most influential figure in the history of the church after Paul and before Luther.
Whatever your thoughts on Augustine, and we don't have to get into them here, his philosophy, teaching, and way of doing church won the day (and the following centuries) not because his thinking was well reasoned or more "right", but because he was more "compelling" through politics and violence.
So while I'm not for equating heresey and orthodoxy as equally valid systems of belief, insomuch as Christianity is a strange blend of tradition and scripture, it's of the utmost importance for us to understand where our traditions have come from when interpreting our faith. Insomuch as Christianity is a religion of truth, it is also of the utmost importance that we be known for recognizing and admitting our faults, especially where they concern the disgusting mistreatment of some "heretics" in our past.
In conclusion, Augustine would probably have Jeremy Camp beaten senseless.
that should say, "in A History of Christianity"....not "I A history"
Redness - posting granted. I think your insights are important. We too often forget that the Church is a human as well as a divine organization and had its flaws along the way. Bishops having a fight club at the Council of Nicea certainly changes how you view the production of its decrees. Yet we don't say Christ wasn't God because the bishops weren't acting "Christian." So I think your point is well taken, but we do have to sometimes divorce the method from the idea.
Case in point. When Paul is at trial in Acts 23:1-10 he looks around and notices that the jury is made up of Sadducees and Pharisees, so he says "I am on trial because of the resurrection!" instead of the gospel because he knows they will fight over this and he manages to get free. Very interesting story, makes Paul so much more human to me.
So while some of Augustine's tactics may have been "un-Christian", although the vast majority were certainly virtuous as bishop, the question comes down to Truth. Regardless of how Augustine of Pelegius got in power, which one is right? If you really believe that Pelegius had Paul's justification thought right than we need to go with that. But he doesn't. Athanasius in the council of Nicea was accused of being less Biblical than Arius because he was using Greek terms, but notice that Athanasius "won" and we have the proper understanding of Christ's divinity because of it.
I don't mind looking into the historical circumstances of how doctrine and such was formed, but I am very hesitant to say that it came solely through power and manipulation. The Church is ours and the Spirit's, and there will be mistakes, but the Spirit is also guiding the Church as well.
Alright, high view of Church, but to be an orthodox Christian I think you need one. Compatablism between human and divine action. Necessary.
"I am very hesitant to say that it came solely through power and manipulation."
Absolutely. The key word is "solely" - let's not act as if power and manipulation had no say in the matter. I'm hesitant to go in the opposite direction though, and declare that our right thinking about God was the result of God's orchestration of history. This brings in too many difficult issues about how God works, and I'm very very hesitant to put systematic rules on things like that.
I'd have to read more about pelagius and Augustine to really give any more thoughts on that tangent...I'm sure Augustine was better than I've portrayed him, and Pelegius I know very little about. The bad part of being a dark ages heretic is that most of your works were burned, so I don't even know that enough reliable evidence exists to accurately describe what he DID think.
Are you ever going to tell us what you won in the debate?
I haven't recieved anything from the Union yet, so I think I am going to punk the president in the face and yell "God bless George Bush" over him.
Post a Comment
<< Home