Dormition Abbey and The Tomb of The Virgin Mary
Reply
Author Archives: Kristofer Carlson
The Icon of the Dormition of the Theotokos
Mary; the Mother of God – An Orthodox Documentary Film
Fr. Sofian Boghiu on the Mother of God
A Walk in the Woods
A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail by Bill Bryson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
There’s not often I’ll read a book and bust a gut laughing. Most written humor isn’t worth more than a chuckle. This book is different.
Perhaps it is my upbringing as the son of a former logger, who used to tell tales of hiking to camp for the season with a Franklin stove strapped to his back, or as the grandson of a miner who on a Friday night would run 10 miles down the mountains to play piano in a dance band, then run back up the mountain in time for work the next morning. Every summer our family used to drive up abandoned logging roads and climb directly over mountains (instead of around them) to reach a mountain lake situated almost exactly at 10,000 ft in elevation. If you got there too early in June or too late in August, you risked being snowed in. The weather was below freezing at night, sometimes hot during the day, and could change from warm and sunny to snow within minutes. This was what we called fun.
I remember one summer my father took a friend and I camping. We hiked quite a ways along a trail before stopping for the night. Shortly after making camp, a group of young men arrived, made camp, and commenced drinking, swearing, and generally doing what young, unaccompanied young men do. My father put on his boots, his cowboy hat, and his .45 revolver, then walked into their camp and invited them to leave. Within minutes, they were gone.
When I tell you this book rings true, you can believe me. I know what it is like to be overweight, out of shape, and stupidly attempting things that young men would be wary of. I saw my father do it over and over again. And I remember when he, like Stephen Katz in the book, would begin deliriously divesting himself of various gear, comestibles, and assorted clothing. It’s only after hiking uphill to almost 12,000 ft that you suddenly realize you don’t need that second cast aluminum skillet, or that huge roll of 6 mil plastic, or that bag of Quikrete you intended to use to route a spring to a place nearer to the campsite.
When I tell you I laughed out loud, it is because I recognized something of myself, my father, and our silly exploits in this book.
The Stain of Sin
The Stain of Sin
I have a nice Brooks Brothers shirt. The patter is subtle enough to work with a suit, yet looks good with a pair of jeans. It’s one of my favorite shirts. Except it has a couple stains that bother me. It’s been through the wash a couple times, but comes out with the same stains. The shirt is remains a great shirt, yet the stains ruin if for me. Everyone can see the stains; the shirt no longer looks good. It’s been ruined.
In the Orthodox Trisagion hymn is a prayer known as “O Heavenly King”, which goes like this:
O Heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of Truth,
Who are in all places and fill all things;
The Treasury of good things and the Giver of life:
Come and abide in us, cleanse us from every stain,
And save our souls, O Good One.
We pray for the Holy Spirit to cleanse us from every stain. This has its roots in a different conception of sin than we in the West are used to. The western concept of sin is in two parts. While we normally are concerned with the sins we commit (as we should be), the concept of Original Sin is that the guilt of Adam’s sin has been passed on to all of humanity. In other words, human nature itself was not simply corrupted, but actually changed. Thus, even if we had never committed any personal sin, we would still bear the guilt of Adam’s sin.
Think for a moment about my shirt. It is still made of the same fabric. The fit and finish are still the same. It has the same no wrinkle finish, and never needs ironing. It has those nasty stains, which affect the appearance of the shirt. Yet the stains are not part of the shirt, and do not change the essence of what it means to be a Brooks Brothers shirt. The stains are something extra, something that has corrupted the shirt, yet without affecting its essential nature.
For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. (Jer 2:22)
Here Jeremiah clearly references the idea of sin as a stain that cannot be removed with a simple washing. The stain remains, despite our best efforts. We need something more. And yet, even so, the idea of sin as a stain implies that while sin may injure us, damage us, make us less than we were meant to be, yet sin is something foreign, something other, something that comes from outside us. It adheres to us without becoming part of us.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isa 1:18)
No matter how much I try, I cannot get rid of the stain of sin. And yet the Lord says that He can make them whiter, “as no fuller on earth can white them.” (Mar 9:3) In other words, our Lord can remove the stain of sin, leaving our essential human nature intact. Our Lord can return us to the Edenic state, a state of purity, a state of innocence, a state where we can commune with God “face to face”, as it were.
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. (Ps 51:1-7)
This is a fascinating psalm, a psalm of repentance, written after David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Take a look at how David refers to his sin, and what he is asking of God. First, David asks God to “blot out my transgressions.” The best way to combat stains is to blot them up. Basically you apply a towel over the spill to absorb it. This works better than rubbing the stain, which has a tendency to spread the stain and push it further into the surface. Second, Daniel asks God to wash and cleanse him. David asks God to “purge him with hyssop”, which is part of the ceremonial cleansing made for people who had been cured of leprosy, and buildings that had been healed of a “plague of leprosy” (Lev 14). This purging with hyssop also has reference to the ashes of the red heifer (which had burned with cedar and hyssop), and was offered for “purification for sin”, as well as for cleansing from ceremonial uncleanness (Num 19). Finally, David asks God to wash him and make him whiter than snow, which reminds us of the passage from Isaiah, and also the transfiguration account in Mark.
The description of sin and its affect upon the human person is not done in one way. The idea of Original Sin fails to account for all the ways sin is discussed in the bible. In particular, the idea of sin as a stain upon the human person brings with it the idea of sin as something extrinsic to the human person, rather than being something essential to human nature.
The Truth of Orthodoxy
The Martyrdom of St Polycarp
My father is a fundamentalist, a dispensationalist, and an ordained minister. For many years he taught courses on a variety of subjects and has recently collected his lecture notes into a series of books. In one entitled The Kingdom of the Frauds, he describes a number of Christian and non-Christian religions. In the section on Eastern Orthodoxy he writes:
The Orthodox Church traces its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire, to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles. It practices what it understands to be the original ancient traditions, believing in growth without change.[1]
Now if what Orthodoxy claims is actually true — if the Eastern Orthodox Church indeed descends from and continues in the teachings of the Holy Apostles — then its truth claims have to be taken seriously. It is not enough to dismiss them out of hand, as the historical evidence is all there. Nor is it enough to claim some great apostasy took place without pointing to evidence of the early church apostatizing.[2]
My sister recently encountered this all-too-easy dismissal of Orthodoxy. Not long ago she attended her class reunion at Colorado Springs Christian School (CSCS). She was sitting with some of her friends when a former classmate approached. When the subject of my sister’s recent conversion to Orthodoxy came up, her classmate snidely commented: “Oh, they’re the ones who think they are descended from the original Church.” After making this comment, her classmate turned and walked away. My sister’s friends then asked: “So why did you become Orthodox?” My sister replied: “Because I became convinced they are descended from the original Church.” [Cue rim shot.]
The historical evidence is all there. For me, there were perhaps three works that had the greatest impact upon me. The first was the Didache, aka the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.[3] This is an ancient church order, one which scholars now think could date between 50 – 120 AD, although it seems likely to have been written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.[4] There is a clear continuity of thought and practice between the Didache and other ancient church orders such as the Didascalia Apostolorum, (c. 200-250 AD)[5], the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215A.D., and written by Hippolytus)[6], and the Apostolic Constitutions (c. early 3rd century, with interpolations dating out to 400 A.D.)[7] A comparison of these documents shows a certain creative elaboration, or as my father put it, “growth without change.”
The second major influence was the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins (c. 434 A.D.) St. Vincent wrote following his participation in the third Ecumenical Council in 431 A.D.; his Commonitorium was written to capture the methods used by the Ecumenical Council to define Orthodox doctrine over against error.[8] The famous rule of Vincent of Lerins is summed up on three words: catholicity, antiquity, and consent. St. Vincent writes:
This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.[9]
While the protestant translator chose to use the word “universality”, the actual word is “catholicity.” The term “catholicity” has to do with a faith which is whole, complete, and entirely sufficient.[10] This meaning is clearly different than the term “universal”, which term is generally used as a replacement for “catholic” or “catholicity.” The term “universal” has reference to the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church, that which is made up of all saints, whether dead or alive. This hidden or invisible church is by extension the “universal” church, as opposed to the sectarianism of the visible church. But the idea of catholicity is a rebuke to all schisms, sects, and denominations.
Following the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, we must search out that which is whole, entire, and sufficient (catholicity); we must search out that which is from antiquity; and we must search out that which is of common consent (not new or innovative.) Thus a new doctrine — such as the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, or the Dispensational Protestant doctrine of the secret return of Christ and the subsequent Rapture of the Church — is automatically excluded. By common consent we refer to the consensus fidelium — the widespread agreement, or the general consensus of the faithful.
The third major influence is The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,[11] which is a rather obscure reference. St. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, writes concerning St. Polycarp:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.[12]
What I find most interesting is St. Polycarp’s response to the Roman proconsul who had asked him to recant his Christian faith. Polycarp replied: “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”[13] St. Polycarp, at that time an 86 year old man, proclaims himself to have been a Christian for 86 years. In other words, this man who was the companion and disciple of the apostles was baptized as an infant. By extension, then, the apostles practiced infant baptism.
In the Didache we see an ancient church order of the apostolic church, one untainted by the supposed “Great Apostasy.” This church order is liturgical, hierarchical, and sacramental, all of which are anathema to the Protestant church of my youth. In the Rule of St. Vincent we see the manner in which the ancient church determined and maintained the apostolic faith over and against all manner of theological errors and heresies. When applying these principles to the Protestant church of my youth, or the Lutheran church of my adulthood, I was forced to acknowledge them to be weighed in the balance and found wanting. And then the witness of St. Polycarp, while not conclusive in itself, was nevertheless the final straw.
The evidence was all there, right in front of me. I could no longer deny that the Orthodox Church was indeed the lineal descendant of the church of the apostles. The only question was whether I was going to accept the historical evidence and adapt myself to the church, or whether I was going to continue to try and get the church to adapt itself to me and my desires. Despite become Orthodox, this is a struggle that will be with me until the day I die.
Bibliography
Ancient Christian Writings. n.d. “Didache.” Ancient Christian Writings. Accessed May 25, 2015. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html.
Carlson, Norman. n.d. “The Kingdoms of the Frauds: The Major Religions And Cults Of The World.” The Colorado Free Bible College. Edited by Norman Carlson. Accessed May 25, 2015. http://www.thecfbc.com/sites/thecfbc.com/files/The%20Kindoms%20Of%20The%20Frauds60a.pdf.
Chapman, Henry Palmer. 1913. “Didascalia Apostolorum.” Catholic Encyclopedia. Accessed June 9th, 2013. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Didascalia_Apostolorum.
Hippolytus. 1997. “The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome.” Kevin P. Edgecomb. July 8. Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html.
Martini, Gabe. 2015. “Vincent of Lérins and the Catholicity of the Church.” On Behalf of All. May 24. Accessed May 25, 2015. blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/vincent-of-lerins-and-the-catholicity-of-the-church/.
Schaff, Philip. 1884. ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
—. 2004. ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies. Edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. 7. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
—. 2004. NPNF2-11 Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian. Edited by Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 11. 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Endnotes
[1] (Carlson n.d., 167)
[2] When I was a young man, I remember being taught that the “Great Apostasy” took place immediately after the death of the last apostle. The evidence for this was taken from Revelation chapter two, in the letter to the church of Ephesus, where it is stated: “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.” (Rev 2:4) Additional evidence is from Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, where he says there will be “a falling away” before the “day of the Lord.”(2 Thes 2:1-3) No historical evidence was ever provided to back up this claim, even though those making the argument claimed to be using the “grammatical-historical method” of exegesis. As it turns out, the greatest proponent of the “Great Apostasy” occurring immediately after the apostolic era is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka the Mormons.
[3] (Schaff 2004, 552)
[4] (Ancient Christian Writings n.d.)
[5] (Chapman 1913)
[6] (Hippolytus 1997)
[7] (Schaff 2004, 573)
[8] (Schaff, NPNF2-11 2004, 207)
[9] (Schaff, NPNF2-11 2004, 214)
[10] (Martini 2015)
[11] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 65)
[12] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 688)
[13] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 69)
The False Theology of Theologia Crucis
The Crucifixion of Christ
Martin Luther was a lover of binary alternatives in theology. One set of binary alternatives is set forth in his Heidelberg Disputations, in which he drew the distinction between the Theology of the Cross (Theologia Crucis) and the Theology of Glory (Theologia Gloriae). In Martin Luther’s mind, you could be either one or the other. However, he failed to recognize the existence of other dimensions to theology and, in his failure, pointed the Protestant Reformation in the wrong direction.
The Heidelberg Disputations are a set of 28 theological theses and 12 philosophical theses defended before the Augustinian Brotherhood, of which he was a member. While the nailing of Luther’s 95 theses to the Wittenburg door is thought to be the event that sparked the Protestant Reformation, a case could be made that Luther’s Heidelberg Disputations had the more far-reaching theological implications. The key to understanding Luther’s theology is found in theses 19 – 22.
19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1.20].
20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.
22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
Luther begins by arguing that we cannot know God in His essence through the created order. The theologian who claims to perceive and know the mind of God is what Luther calls the theologian of glory and is making a god for himself in his own image. This is most certainly true. However, Luther then states that God can only be known through suffering and the cross, totally ignoring Christ’s bodily resurrection as the first fruits of the general resurrection.
Luther’s faulty argument for Thesis 20 is unconvincing.
He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
The “back” and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1[:25] calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn wisdom concerning invisible things by means of wisdom concerning visible things, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering. As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1 [:21], “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. [45:15] says, “Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.”
So, also, in John 14[:8], where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: “Show us the Father.” Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, “Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father” [John 14:9]. For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John [14:6 and] 10[:9] “No one comes to the Father, but by me.” “I am the door,” and so forth.
Do you see what Luther did there? He uses passages of Scripture to proof-text his point, although the passages in question don’t say what he implies. Let us look at 1 Cor 1:21. “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Luther then argues that this passage teaches we can only know God “in the humility and shame of the cross.” But this passage says nothing of the kind. Perhaps Luther presumed his hearers would automatically consider the immediate context, in which Paul states: “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23a). Or shortly thereafter, when Paul states: “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2) But the cross is not the highest good (summum bonum) in Paul’s theology, as he makes clear later in this epistle.
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 ¶ But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. (1 Cor 15:12-23)
The point of the Cross was not the death of Christ, but rather that the Christ was united to our humanity in everything, including death, but because the Christ was also God Almighty, His humanity could not be held by the grave. Through His rising from the dead, Jesus Christ opened the doors to Hades, led captivity captive, and is become the proof of our bodily resurrection. The Cross was not the highest good, but merely a means to an end — not the salvation of our souls, but the resurrection of our fleshly and ensouled bodies.
The Recent Invention of Verbal Inerrancy
The Holy Bible
The current enthusiasm for the idea of verbal inerrancy—as indeed the word itself—is relatively recent. Author Carl Piepkorn points out that while the word bears superficial resemblance to the ancient Latin word inerrantia, it is in fact “a kind of do-it-yourself [or manufactured] term, …with in- meaning ‘not’ and errantia meaning ‘the act of wandering about.” Piepkorn cites the Oxford English Dictionary as pointing out that the first use of the English word inerrant was in 1834, and its first use in a religious context was in 1865 when describing the manner in which the Pope was preserved from error.[1]
Michael Horton, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, describes the “Princeton Formulation of Inerrancy” as the “best formulation of inerrancy” because “it anticipates and challenges caricatures.”[2] The Princeton Formulation is contained in the book by B.B. Warfield and A.A. Hodge entitled Inspiration (1881), and is cited as the first work stating that only the autographs were inerrant, and that the inerrancy of the extant text had not been supernaturally maintained.[3]
While Michael Horton likes to read modern formulations of inerrancy back into the early church fathers, this cannot be done even with the so-called “Princeton Formulation of Inerrancy.” For one thing, the word never occurs in Warfield and Hodge’s book. This should not be surprising, given that the word was newly minted when Warfield and Hodge wrote their book. For another, the supposed “inerrancy” described by Warfield and Hodge is nothing like that of the modern Fundamentalist and Evangelical.
Warfield and Hodge write: “[I]n all the affirmations of Scripture of every kind, there is no more error in the words of the original autographs than in the thoughts they were chosen to express.”[4] If they stopped there, the modern evangelical would be happy. But then they gradually expose a more nuanced position. Instead of speaking of “all the affirmations of Scripture of every kind”, they later refer to “all their real affirmations.”
In view of all the facts known to us, we affirm that a candid inspection of all the ascertained phenomena of the original text of Scripture will leave unmodified the ancient faith of the Church. In all their real affirmations these books are without error.[5]
So what is the content of these “real affirmations” anyway? Does it in any way conform to the modern understanding of inerrancy? Warfield and Hodge write:
It must be remembered that it is not claimed that the Scriptures any more than their authors are omniscient. The information they convey is in the forms of human thought, and limited on all sides. They were not designed to teach philosophy, science, or human history as such. They were not designed to furnish an infallible system of speculative theology. They are written in human languages, whose words, inflections, constructions, and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of human error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible; and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong. [emphasis added][6]
While Warfield and Hodge go on to state that in all matters of historical fact the scriptural affirmations are without error, they have already mentioned this is not a reference to human history. Thus, what is in view is the history of the relationship between God and man, and in particular the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a long way from the modern concept of inerrancy as encompassing any subject mentioned within Sacred Scripture. Warfield and Hodge summarize their position as follows:
There is a vast difference between exactness of statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness, which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed. It is this accuracy and this alone, as distinct from exactness, which the Church doctrine maintains of every affirmation in the original text of Scripture without exception. Every statement accurately corresponds to truth just as far forth as affirmed.[7]
There is a vast gulf fixed between the accuracy of the Scriptures as affirmed by Warfield and Hodge, and the “absolute literalness” approach of the modern Fundamentalist and Evangelical. It may well be that the work entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910-15) is the first major work to formally equate inspiration with verbal inerrancy, although this assertion is made in only two of the seven essays on the Sacred Scriptures.[8] If so, the idea of verbal inerrancy is an American invention, made by those who came to be known as Fundamentalists.[9] Despite the feeble attempt by L. W. Munhall to find support for this position from the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, it is clear that their understanding of inerrancy concerned the forma (doctrine), and not the materia (text).[10]
Lutheran theologians of the twentieth century quickly adopted the Fundamentalist definition of inerrancy. In his book Luther and the Scriptures, J. Michael Reu developed his thesis that Luther provides support for the recently developed Fundamentalist definitions of inerrancy. Despite his valiant effort, he is unable to provide a single instance of Luther’s use of the word inerrant (or its Latin or German equivalent) in the manner with which the word is used by the Fundamentalists. Despite this failure, no less a luminary than John Warwick Montgomery approvingly cites Reu as concluding that Luther “did indeed hold to the inerrancy of the Bible.”[11] Reu and Montgomery’s arguments are cast in 20th century terms, not in terms used by Luther and the Lutheran Confessors. The claim that Luther supports a dogma that was developed over 400 years after his death is at best an appeal to authority. At worst, it puts words in his mouth and besmirches his reputation.
John Calvin himself would have affirmed the accuracy of Sacred Scripture, while rejecting the modern formulations of “verbal inspiration” as well as inerrancy. This is easily demonstrated through his commentaries. Take for example, the following passage of Scripture:
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value. (Matt 27:9)
In his commentary on this passage, John Calvin notes that the attribution of the quoted passage is in error.
How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, (11:13;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it.[12]
Having announced the attribution to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah as a mistake, Calvin promptly ignores it. The error is immaterial, irrelevant, and the inspiration of the text suffers not one whit.
Endnotes
[1] (Piepkorn 2007, 29)
[2] (Horton 2010)
[3] (Houtz 2014)
[4] (Warfield and Hodge 2013, Kindle Locations 130-131)
[5] (Warfield and Hodge 2013, Kindle Locations 200-202)
[6] (Warfield and Hodge 2013, Kindle Locations 202-207)
[7] (Warfield and Hodge 2013, Kindle Locations 210-213)
[8] See “The Inspiration of the Bible — Definition, Extent and Proof” by Rev. James M. Gray (Gray 2005), and “Inspiration” by Evangelist L. W. Munhall. (Munhall 2005)
[9] (Portier 1994, 130)
[10] (Munhall 2005)
[11] (Montgomery n.d.)
[12] (Calvin 1999, 188)
Bibliography
Calvin, John. 1999. Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke – Volume 3. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Gray, James M. 2005. “The Inspiration of the Bible — Definition, Extent and Proof.” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. December 22. Accessed November 20, 2008. http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume2/chapter1/gray.php.
Horton, Michael. 2010. “The Truthfulness of Scripture.” Modern Reformation, March/April, Inspiration and Inerrancy ed.: 26-29. Accessed March 7, 2015.
Houtz, Wyatt. 2014. “John Calvin rejected Inerrancy.” PostBarthian. May 26. Accessed March 7, 2015. http://postbarthian.com/2014/05/26/john-calvin-believed-original-autographs-bible-errors/.
Montgomery, John Warwick. n.d. “Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ.” Issues, Etc. Article Archive. Accessed December 28, 2008. http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar37.htm.
Munhall, L. W. 2005. “Inspiration.” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. December 23. Accessed November 20, 2008. http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume2/chapter2/munhall.php.
Piepkorn, Arthur Carl. 2007. What Does “Innerancy” Mean? Vol. 2, in The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Volume Two, by Arthur Carl Piepkorn, edited by Phillip J Secke, 25-55. Mansfield: CEC Press.
Portier, William L. 1994. Tradition and Incarnation: Foundations of Christian Theology. New York: Paulist Press.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, and Archibald Alexander Hodge. 2013. Inspiration. Kindle Edition. Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Justifying God
Theodicy is commonly thought to concern itself with the problem of evil. The most banal expression of this is the phrase: “Why do bad things happen to good people?” But it is more than that. So much more. In fact, theodicy has to do with the justification of God. It is a defense of God’s goodness and greatness in the face of evil, of suffering, and of death.
One of the best descriptions of the problem was recently expressed by Stephen Fry, who when asked what he would say to God:
I’d say, ‘Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.
There are creatures who use humans as hosts for part of their life cycle, creatures responsible for a great deal of pain, suffering, and death. Take for example, the protozoan known as Plasmodium, which is responsible for Malaria. The five species of Plasmodium are all spread from human to human using mosquitoes, and all five species mature and reproduce in the human liver. The World Health Organization says that in 2013, around 584,000 people died of malaria, most of them children under the age of five. You could say that the existence of Malaria has as its primary purpose the killing of children.
Dracunculiasis is the formal name for the infection by the Guinea worm. The Guinea worm primarily infects humans (and possibly dogs) by drinking water containing guinea worm larvae. Once a human is infected, the worm matures, mates, and slowly travels through the body to the lower leg, often causing intense pain. Eventually the worm causes an allergic reaction. Blisters form, eventually burst, and the worm begins to protrude from the body. Slowly, over a period of weeks, the guinea worm exits the body. As it slowly makes its way out of the, the burning sensation causes people to seek relief by soaking their leg in water, allowing the worm to release larvae which are eaten by water fleas, continuing the life cycle. The sole purpose of the Guinea worm’s existence seems to be to cause great pain and suffering; it does this indiscriminately, and for the sole purpose of furthering its own reproduction.
If you are a creationist, you have to believe that God created these (and other) creatures whose sole purpose is to cause pain and suffering. Thus we must assume that God desires to see his creation suffer. It is not enough that some humans will suffer in the afterlife, but quite a number of the sufferings of this life are caused by creatures God created for this express purpose. We humans have a name for this type of personality disorder; if we are indeed created in the image of God, than this name would necessarily apply to a God who seems to enjoy the sufferings of his creation.
If you are an evolutionist who believes in God, you have other difficulties. The evolutionary process which led to the existence of humans has been the result of a great deal of suffering and death. There have been five great extinction events, known colloquially as the “Big Five.”
- Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction: 443 million years ago; 85% of sea life went extinct
- Late Devonian mass extinction: 359 million years ago; 75% of all life went extinct
- Permian mass extinction: 248 million years ago; 96% of all life went extinct
- Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction: 200 million years ago: 50% of all animals went extinct
- Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction: 65 million years ago; extinction of the dinosaurs, allowing for the rise of mammalian life
So much death and destruction, leading the way to the development of human beings. How do we account for this? What was the purpose of death on such a large scale, occurring multiple times? If we accept the biblical creation accounts, death is the result of sin. Yet how could there have been sin before humanity existed? And if suffering and death existed prior to the fall, how then is God a good God? How can we love a God who seems to enjoy the suffering of His creation?
I have no answers, only questions. One day, I hope to ask God what was the point of it all. As Stephen Fry recently noted when asked if after death he found himself in front of the pearly gates: “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?”
Seriously, what’s the point of it? In the book of Job, the answer given seems to have been: “Who do you think you are to be asking me that question?” But, if the Bible is true, humans were created in the image and likeness of God; I therefore presume upon that likeness to ask the impertinent, impolitic, and possibly blasphemous question: “Why?”
And yet, I know that God exists. I have experienced his providential care. Yes, what I call providence could be chalked up to chance, but I’ve also experienced miracles in my life — at least one of which was witnessed by others. My life (and those with me) has been saved twice in miraculous ways, at least one of which has no rational explanation. I have therefore personally experienced the hand of God working in my life.
When I begin to doubt the goodness of God, I am also forced to remember the goodness of God towards me. The God who seems to delight in suffering, also seems to delight in being good towards his creation. I cannot reconcile the two. One day, I hope to ask God the same question Stephen Fry asks: “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about?”