Paul, Theology and Disagreement

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." -I Corinthians 1:10

There are numerous books on systematic theology. It is no surprise to the religiously savvy—those inclined to having a copious library—that multiple theologians make much ado about…well, everything. From writing about the Creation days in Genesis to eschatological paradigms in Revelations, Christian thought throughout history, and today, have been enveloped with religious perspectives. This presents a bit of a problem, but not an egregious one. Many Christians today disagree on just about any point of doctrine. It's almost ubiquitous to say that for every prayer and "amen" a Christian gives (assuming they pray), he or she has 10 woes to those with whom he or she disagrees. This is a serious problem for those involved in polemics or who wish to engage the unbeliever to account for his or her worldview, i.e., the apologetic task.

Such nuances in Christian experience don't necessarily lead to terrible portends that terminate in strife. Sure, there are ominous individuals who care little about Christian piety in order to trouble the household of God. But there are also those who care about the nature of true faith. This is where contention can serve the church. Throughout church history, the church has been able to answer almost every heresy through debate. Any modern heresy that buoys itself in the tavern of theological insight can almost certainly find its root in church history. Approbation can certainly be established with this sort of dialectic, and can serve the church. Tomes can fill the pages of history that testify to the nature of the apologetic task among church historians.

Notwithstanding the fecundity in church history, I think the first problem mentioned above needs meticulous consideration. In Paul's letter to the Corinthians (cf. I Corinthians 1:10), he prays that they [the Corinthian believers] be united in mind. Objecting to their party spirit, he chastises the Corinthians for being derisively divisive. It is no doubt, for this reason, that the Greek renders this verse as an exhortation. Parakaleo
specifically means to call forth or to implore. The Christian body is to be united in one mind, according to Paul. But what do we say about his words, "that you agree on everything?" or "speak the same thing" as the AV renders it? The ESV renders this portion, "that you all of you agree." Is this the case? Are we not allowed to disagree on points of doctrine or is Paul here referring to their indigent party spirit that is replete with bankrupt Christian ethics? Much can be said about the disparity of Christian uniformity, but what is symptomatic of that dissonance? We can surely disagree on the corpus of Christian doctrine, but we cannot perpetuate a docile and errant attitude that characterized the Corinthians, namely the party spirit of division.

Church-less Movement

This post is going to be more of a conversation with myself about theology in practice and how our church age (I'm not talking about eschatology directly, though in some way all events in history relate to eschatology) hates order than it loves truth. On the one side I see Christians—honest Christians—try to understand the Word of God; this is the first group. These people usually tend to sidestep from meaningless cavils—following Paul's example in 2 Timothy—but in effect employ a pacifist approach; they envelop a kind of "let's-all-get-along" attitude and encourage others do so out of love (1 Cor.8:1b). The results from this group leads many to question valid points in doctrine due to their indolent praxis. They only open themselves up to an internal dialog as long as it doesn't goad or prod the establishment.

On the other hand, the second group is even more virulent in its approach and akin to activist atheists. These people are doubly dangerous and perilous. They are the opposite of the first group and most likely don't have a home church themselves. They disrupt the establishment, unlike the first group, and in effect urge others to do the same. This kind of thinking culminates in the theology of "church-less Christianity" (see Horton, Christless Christianity). They sacrifice orthopraxy for a false sense of orthodoxy.

There has been a somewhat buoying movement among young Christians who are making a stand to leave churches in order to arouse the churches' suspicion. This, however, caricatures an orthodox view of ecclesiology (the study and nature of the church: its origins, functions, and institutions). I won't get into which theory best befits the theological and Biblical content of the merits of ecclesiology, but this movement is symptomatic of these young YRR ("Young, Restless and Reformed"). These youngsters couch themselves in Calvinism (Doctrines of Grace), but they also seem to ignore what Calvin himself wrote in his Institutes in book IV about the nature of the church.

Current Problems in Hermeneutics

A Spiritual Appraisal of Spiritual Things

In my studies of 1 Corinthians in both the King James Version (the Authorized Version) and the ESV and NASB (or Alexandrian Text), I've found a couple differences in terms of what is written in 1 Cor. 2:13. The last part of the verse really confuses the reader for the most part, if the reader considers the Greek while comparing the various translations. The verb that elicits "combining" or "comparing" seems to be a little misleading after reading the following word "spiritual." What most of the authorities tend to agree on is that the word suggest "binding together tightly" which is what the AV seems to purport. (However, this is universally known to be a point of contention among translators.) The following, therefore, makes it all the more difficult to interpret: "Spiritual things to Spiritual" (Authorized Version). The NASB reads this way: "Spiritual thoughts with Spiritual words." In trying to make sense of this verse, the NASB adds "thoughts" and "words," which are not found in the original text, the same for the word "things" found in the AV. The NASB I think gets the overall meaning of the context, albeit adding words. Previously the Apostle Paul wrote about human wisdom concerning their form of learning, i.e. "words." The concept here in the context is concerned with the thoughts conveyed in human wisdom communicated in words; in contrast, Paul writes our learning is in spiritual thoughts and words in the following verse. Therefore, the Apostle Paul is concerned with the form: one is appraised spiritually and the other isn't. This renders the text to say that the unbeliever doesn't have an appraisal of spiritual thoughts because he cannot (ability) appraise them. He is not able, in all his might, to appraise them—even if he wanted to (Romans 3:11; Acts 17:27).

As I started to read some commentaries on this problem, I have found that they don't spend much time on this clause since there's no uniform acceptance on how this verse should be rendered. The text, after all, only has three Greek words: pneumatikois pnuematika sugkrinonotes, which if we translate it literally reads, "Spiritual things to spiritual collate [or combine]." This is why this is so difficult.

    

Literature, War, and Christian Theology

War and Peace
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Around the time of the American war between the states, the renowned Russian novelist, Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) composed one of the greatest narratives in the history of Western culture -- about some of the most significant military events of last century: the Napoleonic wars, the burning of Moscow, the retreat of 1812. The title of the enormous novel was War and Peace.

Read the article here.

The Federal Vision and the PCA's Report, Part 1

After recently writing a post on the Federal Vision, I took it upon myself to read C. Hodge and other magisterial reformers on the topic of justification, error among the clergy, and divisions in the church. These are surely broad strokes in theology, but I hope to make a case that answers some of my thoughts and concerns as they relate to the Federal Vision—a minority of heretical teachers within both the PCA and OPC.

Earlier I noted that the reports and study committees of both Presbyterian bodies haven’t dealt with the issue concerning the FV satisfactorily. I also noted that the PCA was more lenient than the OPC in their final ruling on the report. I will focus more or less on the PCA since it is my Presbyterian denomination. This should concern elders within the church, both in the PCA and those outside the denomination. Paul warns,

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

Calvin in his commentary on 1 Timothy warns similarly,

A good pastor ought therefore to be on the watch, so as not to give silent permission to wicked and dangerous doctrines to make gradual progress, or to allow wicked men an opportunity of spreading them. But it may be asked, “How is it possible for a bishop to constrain obstinate and self-willed men to be silent? For such persons, even though they are vanquished in argument, still do not hold their peace; and it frequently happens that, the more manifestly they are refuted and vanquished, they become the more insolent; for not only is their malice strengthened and inflamed, but they give themselves up to indolence.” I reply, when they have been smitten down by the sword of God’s word, and overwhelmed by the force of the truth, the Church may command them to be silent; and if they persevere, they may at least be banished from the society of believers, so that they shall have no opportunity of doing harm (Calvin, 298.).

My question still remains at this juncture, what has the PCA done so far? Have they heeded Paul or Calvin? Yet still, there’s more they need to heed. In PCA’s Book of Church Order, who every elder in the church is vowed to keep, says of the General Assembly (also known to others as a synod): “The General Assembly shall have power (g.) To suppress schismatical contentions and disputations, according to the rules provided therefor” (BCO, 14-6[g].). Of course, answers to this kind of precedence could rouse the retort that the officers conducted a study which concluded to adjudicate those elders teaching FV as “brothers in Christ.” I would then ask, is the study committee compromised? Can they not tell the difference between the Gospel of Christ and the doctrine of which is not of faith?

(More to come in part 2. We will look at the report the committee produced and evaluated it more fully.)

The Federal Vision, NPP, and "Dangerous" Underpinnings

After doing some careful research, what I found concerning the NPP (The New Perspective on Paul) and the Federal Vision among two leading conservative Presbyterian bodies have declared unwittingly that the Federal Vision is “dangerous.” That concerns me, mainly because the OPC hasn’t declared it heretical. The PCA is even more lenient in its study committee. They went on to say that they [Federal Vision proponents] are “brothers in Christ.” I have a hard time accepting this line of thinking if what is being taught is contrary to the Scriptures and more specifically contrary to the Westminster Standards, the confession and catechisms of both Presbyterian bodies.

Brian Schwertly writes, “Most importantly it [the report] explicitly states that the Federal Vision doctrine of justification is contrary to the Word of God and the Westminster Confession of Faith.” I would like to see what the reasons were behind the label of “dangerous” instead of “heretical.” Mr. Schwertly goes on to write that the FV denies the active obedience of Christ imputed to the Christian, which is a definite blow at the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Paul’s words are more than apt as it concerns the church’s body of beliefs, confessions and elders:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9 ESV)

Good Men & Women in a Cruel World: Divine Justice and Moral Obligation

If there is anything we learn from history, it is that it is filled with books that teach us that honorable men and women have suffered under the hands of tyrants and malefactors. This raises a very personal and crucial question: Why is the world so full of evil, especially evil people, without some measure of divine justice? I sometimes feel that God has fallen asleep and has left the honorable and faithful to suffer at the hands of the unholy and reprobate—without reason. There was another person who thought the same thing and has actually authored a great portion of Scripture, and his name is King David. He often suffered under the hands of the “Lord’s anointed,” King Saul. King Saul had sought to "pin him to the wall." On more than one occasion, King Saul had intended to use his spear to kill David. On a constant basis, David would plead with God to avenge his cause. The funny thing is that when David actually had a chance to actuate his vengeance by simply cutting off a piece of Saul’s robe (the corner piece of his robe) while he was sleeping, David immediately felt guilty; the text literally reads, "Afterward David's heart struck him[...]" (1 Samuel 24:4-5). The difference between those who are honorable and those who can care less about honor, values, and doing the right thing is that the honorable will always act with their conscience selflessly whereas the unholy and vile will act out of selfish and malevolent intent. If we act this way, the way David did (by wanting to exact his vengeance instead of trusting in God), what then would separate the honorable from the dishonorable? I am sure there are many who deserve to be treated dishonorably, but why would the faithful stoop to that level, that debased level of the vile and dishonorable? If good men do nothing or worse, act vile, where would that leave the honorable? Paul had similar words for his disciple Timothy in his second letter, Second Timothy. I would suggest reading Paul's letter, seeing that it is short and relevant to my point. Keep the faith. Act with honor. God is faithful and he will exact vengeance on His terms.