The Federal Vision

One of our editors has pointed me to the De Regno Christi website, which is now discussing the Federal Vision now being debated among Reformed Christians, and a movement led by, among several others, our own Peter Leithart. The contributors include Peter and our own Darryl Hart. For more information see:

The Federal Vision, which includes the Joint Federal Vision Statement and several articles by Peter;
The Federal Vision: In their own words, a site compiled by critics giving a lot of talks and papers by the advocates of the Federal Vision; and
Debating the Federal Vision, a short critical article from the Banner of Truth website.

And here are the Wikipedia and the Theopedia articles on it.

Comments

[Bill R]

One of my favorite professors in college used to say, “You don’t have to have an opinion on everything.” That advice has served me well for many years. Here’s one area where I don’t (at least yet) have a firm opinion. I see decent people and good arguments on both sides of this issue (not to mention in-between the sides). Give it another five or ten years to sort things out.

[GL]

Ditto.

[Bill R]

"Ditto." - GL

Does that make us "dittoheads"? ;-)

[Ethan C.]

>>One of my favorite professors in college used to say, “You don’t have to have an opinion on everything.” That advice has served me well for many years.<<

That's about my position on ID, so I hope some folks start posting on this thread just to diversify the conversation on this site.

[GL]

Ethan,

I'm kind of with you in that, as I said on that thread, I don't have a dog in the fight. I just sense that the neo-Darwinist want to kill ID in the cradle. Kind of makes me wonder why. If ID is bad science or not science at all, as they claim, it will die a natural death in time. If that is not the case, I certainly don't want them putting a pillow over the infant theory's head.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm kind of with you in that, as I said on that thread, I don't have a dog in the fight. I just sense that the neo-Darwinist want to kill ID in the cradle. Kind of makes me wonder why. If ID is bad science or not science at all, as they claim, it will die a natural death in time. If that is not the case, I certainly don't want them putting a pillow over the infant theory's head.<<<

Because, Greg, it was never really about the science. Science is just the "privileged space" wherein larger fish are being fried.

[GL]

Because, Greg, it was never really about the science. Science is just the "privileged space" wherein larger fish are being fried.

That does indeed appear to be the case.

[James A. Altena]

While Stuart has a good point, scientists also have a real fear (with some history, sometime tendentiously distorted, to support it) that not squelching false or pseudo-scientific ideas when they first rear their heads can have pernicious, even destructive, consequences to science and society alike, especially if these gain political backing. This can range from any number of examples of 19th c. medical quackery to phenomena such as Lysenkoism in the 20th c.

In the case of ID, I think the reaction is somewhat misplaced; but I can't blame scientists for not wanting a Scopes trial redidivus. While Darrow may have humiliated Bryan on the stand, the practical result was that many states in the USA passed laws and regulations that completely excised *any* mention of evolution *whatsoever* from elementary through high school science textbooks well into the 1960s. Even today there are certainly a goodly number of Christian who subscribe to six-day 24-hour creationism that would make it illegal to teach evolution even as a theory if they could. However much of an over-reaction it may be, in ID many scientists smell a Trojan Horse -- and the conduct of some of the defendants in the Dover, PA trial did nothing to allay such suspicions.

Which leads to a final point -- if we want evolutionary scientists to grant ID proponents integrity and sincerity in their convictions, we as Christians in turn should not cast aspersions or harbor suspicions about the motives of those scientists without hard evidence, but rather seek the most charitable explanation. My single biggest objection to Philip Johnson as an ID apologist is his constant resort to thoroughly unChristian sweeping ad hominen attacks on evolutionists. The fact that the other side sometimes does it to Christian critics of evolution is not justification for Christians to respond in kind. Indeed, as Christ himself showed us, our calling as Christians is precisely *not* to respond in kind.

Now, how about if we take up Ethan's suggestion and talk about FV and NPP here instead of evolution and ID?

David Gray, call your office! :-)

[Bill R]

"Now, how about if we take up Ethan's suggestion and talk about FV and NPP here instead of evolution and ID?" - James Altena

For the same reason, James, that we don't talk much about the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary--these are really mostly "intramural" Christian doctrinal issues largely outside the focus of the Fellowship of St. James. There are scads of websites where you can discuss the pros and cons of these issues, if you like, but such discussions aren't why I visit MC.

[David Mills]

these are really mostly "intramural" Christian doctrinal issues largely outside the focus of the Fellowship of St. James.

Well, not exactly. Among the reasons we started allowing comments on the site was that we wanted divided Christians to have a place they could discuss with each other some of their internal issues. Others may be genuinely interested or find applications or parallels in their own church bodies. They're rarely going to know about the other bodies' websites, much less follow the debates they host.

The problem has been that some people can't discuss these issues without descending to snarling-and-spitting-like-a-wet-cat polemics. But if everyone could avoid being unkind, discuss away.

[labrialumn]

Mr. Altena, I think your references to believers was a bit broadly-brushed, itself.

Evolution is just one of those 19th century pseudo-sciences. It happens to be useful in promoting a particular religious perspective (philosophical materialism), that is the only reason it has outlived phrenology, Freud and phlogiston.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, not exactly. Among the reasons wee started allowing comments on the site because we wanted divided Christians to have a place they could discuss with each other some of their internal issues. Others may be genuinely interested or find applications or parallels in their own church bodies. They're rarely going to know about the other bodies' websites, much less follow the debates they host.<<<

Precisely. Ecumenism consists of two parallel dialogues--the Dialogue of Truth and the Dialogue of Love. The Fellowship of Saint James is very much dedicated to the latter--finding common ground wherein Christians from different traditions can join to gether to address issues that affect all Christians and society in general. But we cannot ignore the Dialogue of Truth, lest we slouch into sloppy, LCD ecumenism. We must address our doctrinal differences frankly and honestly, but always with charity. And, for the most part, we do that here.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>While Stuart has a good point, scientists also have a real fear (with some history, sometime tendentiously distorted, to support it) that not squelching false or pseudo-scientific ideas when they first rear their heads can have pernicious, even destructive, consequences to science and society alike, especially if these gain political backing. This can range from any number of examples of 19th c. medical quackery to phenomena such as Lysenkoism in the 20th c.<<<

Yet they are not slow to embrace false or pseudoscientific ideas when they feel that it will enhance their funding.

[labrialumn]

I don't think that Theopedia is a valid site for information on matters in controversy, except to examine what one faction believes. It certainly isn't an encyclopeia, and it certainly isn't Vincentian, so Theo is questionable as well as pedia.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Science is just the "privileged space" wherein larger fish are being fried." (Stuart)

"That does indeed appear to be the case." (GL)

Would you mine sharing the name/identity of the "larger fish" being fried in the "privileged space" of science? In fact, what would be the goal or purpose of frying this "larger fish" in the "privileged space" of science?

Inquiring minds would like to know! Clarity comes from specificity!

[Nick]

Good job Ethan. That was a subtle hijack ;)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Would you mine sharing the name/identity of the "larger fish" being fried in the "privileged space" of science? In fact, what would be the goal or purpose of frying this "larger fish" in the "privileged space" of science?<<<

Several things are beging contested under the guise of evolutionary biology: the question of epistemology (what do we know, and how do we know it); the question of teleology (why were we made, and what is our purpose); and above all, the issue of authority (is man the measure of all things--by being the "measurer" of all thiings--or is there some transcendant truth rooted in a non-contingent causality). In other words, we're really debating the ultimate question "of life, the universe and everything", to quote "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"--which is why the argument is so vociferous. You don't see scientists getting all worked up about disagreements on other theories or aspects of science. This one, however, goes to the root of the scientific-materialist Zeitgeist, and they know if they lose, a lot of fundamental assumptions--to say nothing of the primacy of science in public discourse--are going to have to be reexamined.

[Nick]

BTW...I know next only what I've read in the above cited articles about FV...I noticed in the position statement they allowed for child consumption of the Lord's Supper, but they don't have an equivalent for baptism. Does this mean they allow for non-baptized children to commune under the auspices of their parents baptism? That wasn't very clear...or I missed it.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"... above all, the issue of authority (is man the measure of all things--by being the "measurer" of all thiings--or is there some transcendant truth rooted in a non-contingent causality). In other words, we're really debating the ultimate question "of life, the universe and everything", to quote "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"--which is why the argument is so vociferous."

Thank you Stuart. My thoughts exactly. And precisely why I enjoy seeing ID proponents "out" these folks who are trying to submarine their hidden agenda underneath the guise of "objective" science.

[David Gray]

>I noticed in the position statement they allowed for child consumption of the Lord's Supper, but they don't have an equivalent for baptism

I am not aware of any FV advocate who does not practice infant baptism.

[GL]

I agree with Stuart on the larger agenda behind the science of origins. (Which is how I would put it, for establishing how everything that is, visible and invisible, came to be is what is ultimately at stake. Nicene Christians believe that God made all things; secular materialists believe there is no God and that natural processes account for all things. If Nicene Christians are correct, we are responsible to a higher authority; if secular materialists are correct, we are the higher authority.)

There are other scientific fields that are hotly disputed, such as the science of climate change. The larger agenda there is internationalism and a controlled economy. As I suggested to Francesca, you really ought to understand the end game. You can usually tell that a larger agenda is at stake when the claims exceed those justified by the actual available data.

[GL]

Now, back to the topic. I would love to know David Gray's take on Federal Vision.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I noticed in the position statement they allowed for child consumption of the Lord's Supper, but they don't have an equivalent for baptism<<<

You guys will bend over backwards to avoid using the terminology of the undivided Church. How about simply saying that they will permit "infant communion", or that they will allow infants to "receive the Holy Eucharist". But that would mean you'd have to come to a common understanding of what the Eucharist is, wouldn't you?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thank you Stuart. My thoughts exactly. And precisely why I enjoy seeing ID proponents "out" these folks who are trying to submarine their hidden agenda underneath the guise of "objective" science.<<<

Yes, but ID proponents do the same thing, and I don't think "Tu quoque" is an appropriate mode of argumentation for this.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> Yes, but ID proponents do the same thing, and I don't think "Tu quoque" is an appropriate mode of argumentation for this.<<<

Stuart, I don't really understand your remark about Dembski being on a tree limb and sawing the limb off on the other thread. [Shut up Ethan!]

Because Dembski's being open and honest that he is referring to the Christian God, the supernatural triune God of classic, historic (and fought through many heresies) biblical faith.

So Dembski is not doing the "Tu quoque" argument, much to his credit and integrity, and in return, he is called Wiley Coyote sawing off the limb he stands on.

I don't get that.

If I had my druthers, I'd just out all the hidden agendas, or larger fish being fried, and lay it out on the table for all to see.

"Scientific" materialists, or atheistic macroevolutionist metaphysicists versus Christians.

(Of all the theists in the world, and monotheists in particular, Christians are by far the largest and include the various Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant expressions of the Christian faith.)

So let's dispense with the cheap veneer and be honest: atheists/agnostics versus the theists in a semi-scientific, philosophical, religious, (a)theological debate on ID versus Macro-evolution with spillover effects and consequences for other questions.

[Bill R]

"Well, not exactly." - David Mills

I accept David Mills's clarification. What I objected to is the assumption that those who are not Reformed would comment on who is or is not "truly" Reformed in this argument, an approach I still think is unseemly. That is an "intramural" question. But the broader issues raised by FV (or like disputes in other traditions) are obviously fair game, if charitably pursued.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Because Dembski's being open and honest that he is referring to the Christian God, the supernatural triune God of classic, historic (and fought through many heresies) biblical faith.<<<

But, as they say in Maine, "Ya cahn't get theya from heaya". There is nothing in intelligent design that requires a Christian, Trinitarian God. You could just as easily have the Divine Watchmaker. Demski reads into his theory that which mirrors his worldview, which is exactly what Dawkins and the Darwinists do. Hence, "Tu quoque"--Demski does precisely what he accuses the Darwinists of doing. And, like them he's out on an epistemological limb cutting off the tree behind him.

[David Gray]

>I would love to know David Gray's take on Federal Vision.

I think the discussion referenced above is the most principled and least personality driven discussion I've seen on this topic. And I'm reading more by some FV advocates that I've had little familiarity with up till now. It drives home what I suspected; the label FV tends to cover a fair amount of ground. My primary familiarity up to that point was with primarily Doug Wilson and secondarily Peter Leithart. I think the FV in the writings of Pastor Wilson is predominantly an exercise in recovering a Calvinism with which Calvin could be comfortable (setting aside paedo-communion). That is an over-simplification but not too far off the mark I believe. Far too much of modern Presbyterianism is functionally Baptistic and in practice hostile to what the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches on the efficacy of the sacraments (which are two in number).

For too many I think Presbyterianism is subconsciously for upwardly mobile Baptists. In many Presbyterian churches this is reflected by a low view of the Lord's Supper (monthly or worse, using grape juice instead of wine, I suppose we should be glad they aren't using Grape Crush as someone might stretch that into "fruit of the vine.") It also reflects a low ecclesiology and a tendency towards revivalistic habits of the mind which reformed contemporaries of someone like Charles Finney recognized as highly problematic, at best. This also tends to result in a sectarian view in which things are done because they don't appear to be Roman Catholic instead of worrying about what conforms to Scripture and the WCF.

I think much of the reaction to this has been driven by a visceral resentment of a possible return to Calvin's and Bucer's understanding as well as that of the WCF. They don't want anything that vaguely looks RC, even if Calvin would have been at ease with it but they don't want to put it that way.

So what do we see? Tammany Hall style tactics in the PCA General Assembly, a continued and intellectually bankrupt insistence on grouping the New Perspective on Paul with FV when they are not logically linked. But the NPP is definitely more problematic and its primary public advocate is also more problematic so they get points by association and get people who've done little reading nervous on the topic. They go on to declare that justification by faith is at stake when at least in the writings I've read by Pastors Wilson and Leithart that is clearly not the case. And to aid this they find the most problematic FV statements and positions by certain individuals and then want to attribute responsibility to anyone associated with FV.

Some of the points made at the De Regno Christi discussion by D.G. Hart are very useful. Unlike some critics (R. Scott Clark comes to mind, there's a reason he is unwilling to debate) he is actually interacting with the ideas of those who are engaged there and I think could strengthen the better parts of the FV if people will listen, particularly on the way he is discussing their ecclesiastical commitments. Unlike Clark he doesn't just yell "highway to Rome" and figure that is all that is required. This is very useful, I believe.

Of course the irony of some earlier interactions between Pastor Wilson and at least one PCA pastor (who to his credit carried on a dialogue of sorts) was that we found the PCA pastor really didn't seem to accept what the WCF taught about baptism. Which brings us back to the gut reason that so many resent the FV. For many it simply threatens their Presbyterian treehouse where they can be broad street evangelicals instead of being faithful to their confessions understanding of scripture. I think Hart is correct to challenge the notion that one can be a good evangelical and a good Presbyterian, as the former is currently understood and the latter historically understood.

Maybe all this will make GL more careful in asking next time!

[David Gray]

>You guys will bend over backwards to avoid using the terminology of the undivided Church. How about simply saying that they will permit "infant communion", or that they will allow infants to "receive the Holy Eucharist". But that would mean you'd have to come to a common understanding of what the Eucharist is, wouldn't you?

Typically it is referred to as paedo-communion. Most Presbyerian church's have a common understanding of the Lord's Supper. Some people who affirm what the WCF teaches need to start making their practice consistent with their affirmation.

[DGP]

I don't recall once in the gospels that, when he is visiting the gentiles or interacting with them, that he attacks them verbally, or even attempts to convince them to become Jews.

When encountering the Syro-Phoenician woman (a.k.a. the Canaanite woman), he initially refuses to help her, and implies that she's little better than a dog when compared to the children of Israel. The episode demonstrates an oft-neglected truth: The Lord Jesus did not oppose but actually shared the presumption of his fellow Jews, that Gentiles were morally repulsive people.

This presumption is part of the drama of the Gospel, according to which those who consider themselves superior are unwilling to welcome the Lord, while those who know their unworthiness are more receptive. It makes sense only if those recognized as unworthy really are. (Otherwise the Gospel is reduced from the coming of God's kingdom to a second-rate morality tale about the importance of humility.)

[DGP]

In fact he consistently surprised many of his followers because he didn't confront the pagan political authorities, and consistently reached out to gentiles or their representatives. The Samaritan woman...

"You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, for salvation is from the Jews."

...a Centurion...

"I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." Note the Lord's presumption about what he is likely to find among Gentiles!

...taxcollectors(who weren't all gentiles but were mostly in the same boat).

No, they were arguably even worse, being roughly the equivalent of legalized mafiosi. They were not only morally offensive, but downright mean personalities. Once again, the Lord shows that he is quite happy to associate with himself those whom we would probably be inclined to hold apart.

[DGP]

He cares for them. Even and especially those who are viewed by the religious mainstream at the time as "unclean" and "sinners". Given that view, it only makes sense to reach out to them, rather than build walls which they'd have to climb over to reach God.

It may also make sense to try to smash walls they've built.

[DGP]

I may be wrong on this, and if I am, please correct me. But I don't remember him taking that tact with anyone other than those it seemed clear should know better.

It's not clear whether you mean "being tactful" or "taking that tack." But in any case, one of the stumbling points of the Gospel is that the Lord seems to expect everyone to know better, at least to the point where they recognize his authority and defer to it. He was patient with many different sinners, but never with those who presumed to dispute him, even going so far as to describe Simon Peter as Satanic -- hardly what most people would today accept as a sympathetic approach!

All of this is a nice little aside from the main point I was making which you seem to be trying to neatly avoid.

So this is your example of dialogue? I'm required to follow your line of thought? How quickly the veneer of decency begins to peel off the pride!

[David Gray]

DGP

What has any of that to do with the Federal Vision?

[DGP]

What has any of that to do with the Federal Vision?

Oops, nothing. It was all supposed to be in the "Fear of Death" thread. Thanks for correcting me, but I have far too many troubles working with TypePad -- it's frequently crashing my browser -- so I think I'll have to let it go.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When encountering the Syro-Phoenician woman (a.k.a. the Canaanite woman), he initially refuses to help her, and implies that she's little better than a dog when compared to the children of Israel. <<<

That's one way of looking at it. Perhaps Jesus was testing her. In any case, she has a really cutting comeback, which causes Jesus to acknowledge her place in the Kingdom.

>>>The episode demonstrates an oft-neglected truth: The Lord Jesus did not oppose but actually shared the presumption of his fellow Jews, that Gentiles were morally repulsive people.<<<

And yet, in distinction to most Jews, Jesus did not advocate turning one's back on them, or worse, praying for a restoration that would put Jews over them, but one that would bring them in and cause them to acknowledge that Yahweh is not just a god, or the first god, but THE God, the Lord and Creator of the Universe. This was to be accomplished through the Jews, and the entire plan of salvation aims toward that end. The Jews are the Chosen People precisely so that they can bring the truth of God to all the nations. Hence, Jesus' injunction for them not to hide their light under a bushel basket.

[GL]

David,

Thanks for your comments on the Federal Vision. I agree that it is problematic to lump it and the New Perspective on Paul together. The latter bothers me in that, as a conservative in the true meaning of that term, "new perspectives" are immediately greeted by me with suspicion. The Federal Vision at least appears to be an effort at a return to something which its proponent maintain has been lost. Whether it is in fact that I am not sure.

[David Gray]

>Whether it is in fact that I am not sure.

If nothing else the conduct of most of its opponents is problematic. That is one of the reasons I'm enjoying seeing D.G. Hart interact with these folks, it is a genuine discussion, not a howling at the moon session.

[Rob Grano]

'I agree that it is problematic to lump [the Federal Vision] and the New Perspective on Paul together. The latter bothers me in that, as a conservative in the true meaning of that term, "new perspectives" are immediately greeted by me with suspicion.'

But as many Catholic and a few Orthodox observers have pointed out, the 'New Perspective on Paul' isn't very different from the 'old perspective on Paul' that's been taught by the RCC and the EOC for centuries, based on the understanding of St Paul in the Church Fathers. It's been dressed up with some modern scholarship and there are some differences in nuance, but it's only 'new' in the sense that it may be new to most Protestants.

[David Gray]

>But as many Catholic and a few Orthodox observers have pointed out, the 'New Perspective on Paul' isn't very different from the 'old perspective on Paul' that's been taught by the RCC and the EOC for centuries, based on the understanding of St Paul in the Church Fathers. It's been dressed up with some modern scholarship and there are some differences in nuance, but it's only 'new' in the sense that it may be new to most Protestants.

From what I've read I'm not sure that is true...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>From what I've read I'm not sure that is true...<<<

What have you read? The "new perspective" is hardly monolithic. And it would make for an interesting thread.

[Rob Grano]

'The "new perspective" is hardly monolithic.'

Agreed. But in its general lineaments it does seem to resonate with the broader Patristic understanding of St. Paul. Remember that Luther himself considered HIS reading of Paul a "new" one, and rejected that of the Fathers.

[Bill R]

"But in its general lineaments it does seem to resonate with the broader Patristic understanding of St. Paul. Remember that Luther himself considered HIS reading of Paul a "new" one, and rejected that of the Fathers." - Rob Grano

If so, Rob, then the "New Perspective" is simply the "Old Perspective," and we're back to debating the Reformation once again. I think that's been done. ;-)

[labrialumn]

I think that perhaps this area of theology doesn't yet have clear definitions. For example, my understanding of the New Perspective on Paul is simply that we now know more about the grammatical-historical context of Paul - first century Judaism, not 16th century Roman Catholicism - and that allows us to better understand him at a few points where he is using technical terms which had been misinterpreted in the past. Federal Vision, I understood as being a specific theology that was in some sense inspired by, but not necessarily required by, our increase in understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism.

[Ethan C.]

>>Good job Ethan. That was a subtle hijack ;)<<

Wowee, I'll say! I don't know that I've seen a preemptive call to avoid a subject cause so much focus on that subject before. And it's all 100% off topic.

Fortunately, it seems to have gone away by now.

David Gray writes:
>>But the NPP is definitely more problematic and its primary public advocate is also more problematic so they get points by association and get people who've done little reading nervous on the topic.<<

Are you referring to N.T. Wright, or to someone else?

I can understand why Wright might seem problematic, given his support for women's ordination and propensity to make liberal-sounding noises on some political issues. But do those positions make his work on the NPP suspect? I would think the quality of his historical- critical work might be a better indicator on how seriously to take his views on Paul. Or is there something else problematic about him?

Sorry if you had someone or something else in mind; I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[David Gray]

>I can understand why Wright might seem problematic, given his support for women's ordination and propensity to make liberal-sounding noises on some political issues. But do those positions make his work on the NPP suspect?

Two points. Error and rebellion don't come ziplocked and compartmentalized so someone who favors something like women's ordination is inherently more questionable. That is why I referred, obliquely, to Wright as problematic. However I referred to NPP as problematic because of what it, as I've seen it presented, asserts. If Wright says two and two makes four I won't argue with him.

[Ethan C.]

Thanks, David. I think that's a good answer.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Error and rebellion don't come ziplocked and compartmentalized so someone who favors something like women's ordination is inherently more questionable.<<<

We call that "integrism", and its a very bad error to make, since it does not distinguish between different issues and where truth lies on each one. Instead, it says, "right on all or right on none".

In fact, Wright's work on Paul is pretty much consistent with the Eastern Orthodox perspective, which was never quite informed by the Roman legalist approach that appealed to Augustine and through Augustine to the Reformers. Now, you may not like the Eastern Orthodox perspective, but it has its foundations in the exegesis of the early Church just as much as the Augustinian exegesis. Look at the way in which the Cappodocians, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandrai or Maximos the Confessor viewed Paul (they've written multiple homilies and commentaries on every Pauline letter, verse by verse. They were fully fluent in Pauline thought, in the original language, thus some weight ought to be given to the legitimacy of their views.

[Rob Grano]

Part of the problem here is the unfamiliarity of many Protestants with Eastern Christian readings of Paul. There is an assumption that the East says the same things that Rome was saying in the 15th and 16th centuries, which of course the Reformers rejected. But as Stuart says, such is not the case. The best way to begin to rectify this, IMO, is for Protestants to read up on the Pelagian and "semi-Pelagian" controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries, since it was in this context that these questions originally arose.

[GL]

Rob and Stuart,

Okay. Can you cite some sources to read on the Eastern Perspective on Paul? I don't mean just names, but are you familiar with a good book or two that pulls it all together or, if not, some citations to commentaries by the early Eastern Fathers which you believe to be illustrative. Then, I can contrast and compare what they wrote to what folks like NT Wright are writing.

Thanks,

GL

[David Gray]

>We call that "integrism", and its a very bad error to make, since it does not distinguish between different issues and where truth lies on each one. Instead, it says, "right on all or right on none".

You don't appear to have read what I wrote. But Ethan did so I guess it is okay.

[Rob Grano]

GL -- probably the first thing I'd recommend is Jaroslav Pelikan's account of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian controversies which appears in his history of doctrine. It's either in the first or the second volume (I don't have them handy so can't tell for sure.)

Another good book on the semi-Pelagian controversy (although I do have some theological quibbles with it here and there) is Rebecca Harden Weaver's "Divine Grace and Human Agency." It's somewhat difficult to find (and expensive) but I got it through interlibrary loan.

I don't know of any Eastern Christian books on this subject in Paul per se, but Stuart can probably point you to the patristic references (as will Pelikan.)

[GL]

Rob,

I have volume 1 of Pelikan's history, but not volume 2. I'll give it a look.

[Bill R]

"I have volume 1 of Pelikan's history, but not volume 2. I'll give it a look."

Volume 2 deals exclusively with the Eastern Church. That's where this is no doubt discussed.

[GL]

Volume 2 deals exclusively with the Eastern Church. That's where this is no doubt discussed.

That's kind of what I recalled. I have seen the full set once or twice in a book store I frequent, but most of the time, I can find all of the volumes except vol. 2, which I have wanted to read for some time. My guess is that it does not sell as well as the other volumes because we Westerners are, well, Westerners. Good thing there is Amazon.

[Stuart Koehl]

Pelikan's Volume II: "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) covers the emergence of an explicitly Byzantine theology, including its views on Paul. The best source of Eastern Christian exegesis on Paul is probably in collections of homilies by John Chrysostom, many of which are in subject-organized monographs published by St. Vladimir's Seminary. Most Eastern Christian exegesis on Paul will be found in homiletic form, simply because we don't go in much for "systematic theology"/

On which subject, I just came across an excellent book called "Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition", by James R. Payton. The author is a Protestant writing for Protestants in the manner of Daniel Clendennin's two books "Orthodox Christianity" and "Orthodox Theology", but taking an approach more focused on Evangelicals. He provides an excellent summary of Orthodox history, theology and spirituality, and contrasts them objectively with different threads of Western Christianity.

In particular, he points out the different emphases that Western and Eastern Christianity picked up from their cultural surroundings--the focus of the West on "legal" issues, that of the East on philosophical ones, and also the way in which this shapes their theology and spirituality.

If you want to see why much of the "new look" at Paul is really old hat, this isn't a bad place to start.

[David Gray]

>On which subject, I just came across an excellent book called "Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition", by James R. Payton. The author is a Protestant writing for Protestants in the manner of Daniel Clendennin's two books "Orthodox Christianity" and "Orthodox Theology", but taking an approach more focused on Evangelicals. He provides an excellent summary of Orthodox history, theology and spirituality, and contrasts them objectively with different threads of Western Christianity.

Just started it. He's very sympathetic to EO so far, so sympathetic in fact I'm half expecting a conversion story before the end. But it does seem quite good.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Just started it. He's very sympathetic to EO so far, so sympathetic in fact I'm half expecting a conversion story before the end. But it does seem quite good.<<<

Yes, he's sympathetic, but he's also critical--in much the same way as Clendennin. But I think his main point is that both East and West have much to learn from each other.

[David Gray]

>Yes, he's sympathetic, but he's also critical--in much the same way as Clendennin.

Sounds good, I found Clendennin's books helpful.

[Rob Grano]

I've had a couple folks recommend the volumes on the Pauline works from the Ancient Christian Commentary series, but I've only ever really looked at the one on Romans. It's interesting that in the introduction to that volume the editor Gerald Bray, a Protestant, admits that most Patristic exegesis of Romans is hard to harmonize with that of the Reformation, and he laments the fact that St Augustine never wrote a commentary on Romans.

[Nick]

You guys will bend over backwards to avoid using the terminology of the undivided Church. How about simply saying that they will permit "infant communion", or that they will allow infants to "receive the Holy Eucharist". But that would mean you'd have to come to a common understanding of what the Eucharist is, wouldn't you?

You're right Stuart that these terms are better, however its not back bending. These are the phrases I grew up with. Its a pain to break the habit.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>he laments the fact that St Augustine never wrote a commentary on Romans.<<<

Most of Augustine's anti-Pelagian broadsides are an Augustinian exegesis of Romans.

[Rob Grano]

"Most of Augustine's anti-Pelagian broadsides are an Augustinian exegesis of Romans."

Right, but they're still not strictly speaking a commentary. Bray implies that if there were an actual Augustinian commentary on Romans, Reformation understandings would have more Patristic support.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Right, but they're still not strictly speaking a commentary. Bray implies that if there were an actual Augustinian commentary on Romans, Reformation understandings would have more Patristic support.<<<

Probably. I suppose that Cassian and Vincent of Lerins, among others, must have written commentaries and homilies on Romans, but these did not survive. Given their opposition to Augustine's anthropology, I think they would have pulled Western understanding of Romans back towards the Patristic consensus.

[David Gray]

>I think they would have pulled Western understanding of Romans back towards the Patristic consensus

That statement makes it sound more like the Eastern consensus than the Patristic consensus.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That statement makes it sound more like the Eastern consensus than the Patristic consensus.<<<

That's because, as things stand now, there's only one Western Father--Augustine. He was lucky--most of his writings survived the collapse of the Western Empire, and he wrote in Latin, so that his works became the basis for the Western Christian Tradition. Look at Benedict and Gregory the Great, and you see men working from Augustinian positions.

All the other Latin Fathers put together don't have a corpus of work comparable to Augustine's in breadth and volume, and so, for better or worse, when we speak of the Western Tradition, we speak of Augustine--and forget that in his day, he was just one of many, and that the West was not univocal. The Ambrose, Gallic Fathers, Cassian (a saint in the East, largely ignored in the West) all had very different views from those of Augustine--and their views were very similar to those of the Eastern Fathers--Basil, Nyssan, Nanzianzen, Chrisostom. It isn't that there was an Eastern patristic consensus, and a Western patristic consensus. In fact there was one patristic consensus, but while it carried down in the East, in the West just one Father achieved a degree of domination not found elsewhere.

[Rob Grano]

Checked the Pelikan series and his discussion of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian controversies is in the first volume, starting around page 300 or so. The second volume, dealing with Eastern Christianity, is still very much worth reading, however.

"In fact there was one patristic consensus, but while it carried down in the East, in the West just one Father achieved a degree of domination not found elsewhere."

The stamp of approval, as it were, in the West was given to Augustinian theology at the second Synod of Orange in 529. Being a regional council it had no bearing on the East. St. Augustine's theology, even though controversial, had become prominent in the Western church during that period, but after the Synod it grew to become universally dominant.

The opponents of Augustine's theology have often been called "semi-Pelagians" (although that term itself is from a much later date) but as Lutheran scholar J.L. Neve points out, it's probably more accurate to describe them as semi-Augustinians, since they were generally sympathetic to all of Augustine's theology except for his teaching on grace and free will. It's also interesting to note that unlike Augustine's fight with the Pelagians, the disagreement between Augustine and his opponents on this issue was largely seen as an "in-house" debate; neither side accused the other of being heretical or sub-Christian, and they considered their opponents to be brothers in Christ, albeit brothers who were wrong.

[Stuart Koehl]

Semi-Pelagian is a term I often see get tossed my way whenever I discuss Byzantine theology with certain Roman Catholics of an extra-traditionalist kind. I know they think they should be allowed to drop the "semi".

[Rob Grano]

Calvinists of the stricter sort will sometimes refer to Arminians as semi-Pelagians. I knew a guy, a very convinced Arminian, that had a t-shirt made that said "Semi-Pelagian and Proud!"

[GL]

Thanks Rob, I'll get out my copy this evening. I have just started The Great Jesus Debates: 4 Early Church Battles about the Person and Work of Jesus, which includes a chapter on the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius. It is available at http://www.amazon.com/Great-Jesus-Debates-Church-Battles/dp/0758608624

[Bill R]

"In fact there was one patristic consensus, but while it carried down in the East, in the West just one Father achieved a degree of domination not found elsewhere." - Stuart Koehl

Augustine contra mundum.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

2007.

Stuart Koehl contra mundum.

;-)

[Rob Grano]

"Augustine contra mundum."

True, but somewhat unfortunate in the eyes of the East, to the extent that this one father's views were accepted rather uncritically and to the exclusion of other valid opinions.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> For example, my understanding of the New Perspective on Paul is simply that we now know more about the grammatical-historical context of Paul - first century Judaism, not 16th century Roman Catholicism - and that allows us to better understand him at a few points where he is using technical terms which had been misinterpreted in the past.<<<

New Perspective on Paul. What new insights does the new perspective on Paul shed on:

o "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." (Gal. 1:8) n.b. accursed is sometimes translated as anathema. Even translated as "Let him go to hell!"

o "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh-" (Phil. 3:2-3) Paul calls his enemies, dogs.

o "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" (Gal. 5:12) Paul is figuratively suggesting self-castration for the enemies of God because he is so unhappy about a false gospel being propagated.

o “More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8) Do you know another word for "dung"?

---------

"Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." (Eph. 5:4)

Do you think Paul exempted himself from the above exhortation? If so, do you think he was justified?

o

[Gene Godbold]

TUAD,
What's your point? I only know (well) one guy who is said to be a member of the NPP. That's NT Wright. My reading of him has convinced me that he does an excellent job of re-presenting the Gospel to modern man in terms closer to the way the early church would have experienced it. It has added greatly to my understanding of both Jesus (my King) and Paul.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Dear Gene,

My point is exactly as stated above: "What new insights does the new perspective on Paul shed [on the following verses?]"

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

John Piper's forthcoming book of N.T. Wright's new perspective on Paul might be interesting reading as well.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/augustweb-only/135-52.0.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html

[Bill R]

"True, but somewhat unfortunate in the eyes of the East, to the extent that this one father's views were accepted rather uncritically and to the exclusion of other valid opinions." - Rob Grano

Quite possibly, Rob. But knowing Augustine (from biographies such as that by Peter Brown), he wasn't fazed by opposition from any source, and would have regarded Athanasius's own "contra mundum" as "precedent," as we lawyers like to say.

[GL]

TUAD,

Thanks for the head's up on Piper's new book. I had not heard about it.

Rob,

I skipped forward and read the chapter on the Augustine v. Pelagius controversy in The Great Jesus Debates: 4 Early Church Battles about the Person and Work of Jesus. It didn't help any. If that chapter represents the rest of the book, I would say that I could not recommend it to anyone already steeped in early Church history. It is an excellent introduction to the basic concepts and competing viewpoints, but is very superficial in its treatment. It is obviously intended for the beginner -- might make an excellent Sunday School text.

I will have to turn next to Pelikan.

[Bill R]

"TUAD, Thanks for the head's up on Piper's new book. I had not heard about it."

Same here. And I'm a Piper fan! Ah, another book for my stack. (If I don't post for a while, it's because this stack has finally toppled over and I'm buried somewhere under a few hundred pounds of paper....

[Rob Grano]

GL -- I doubt you'll find that problem with Pelikan. The guy that sold me the series told me that they used it in his seminary class.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Quite possibly, Rob. But knowing Augustine (from biographies such as that by Peter Brown), he wasn't fazed by opposition from any source, and would have regarded Athanasius's own "contra mundum" as "precedent," as we lawyers like to say.<<<

Actually, if you read Augustine's "Recantations", you'll see that he spent the last few years of his life second-guessing himself.

[Bill R]

"Actually, if you read Augustine's "Recantations", you'll see that he spent the last few years of his life second-guessing himself." - Stuart Koehl

There's some wisdom in that! ;-)

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Do you remember in particular what his primary self-recriminations were?

[GL]

Rob,

I've read some of Pelikan's works. Superficial is the last word one would use to describe it.

[Gene Godbold]

I just looked over the site referenced by Collin Hansen from TUADs link. It's a pretty good introduction of what appears to be the root of the problem. Sometime contributor to Mere Comments Wolf N. Paul has a nice comment in what follows (obviously I rather favor the Wrightian strain of the NPP).

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2687

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Do you remember in particular what his primary self-recriminations were?<<<

The most important ones were his reassessments of his views on the corruption of human nature and the irrelevence of human will in cooperation with divine grace.

[James A. Altena]

Again, very belatedly, as I still work on revising my lengthy draft post for the "What I Think of ID" thread (I now hope to finish it by Sunday evening) --

------------------------------

Dear Bill R,

David Mills’ clarification is exactly what I intended.

--------------------

Labrialumn,

My remark did not paint with a broad brush, because evolution is not a pseudo-scientific theory. (I will cover that in more detail in my upcoming post on the ID thread.) I have explained in previous posts on the topic of ID and evolution both:

a) the nature of scientific theories, and the corresponding distinction between a bad (defective or false) but genuine scientific theory and a pseudo-scientific theory;

b) the distinction between scientific and metaphysical theories;

c) scientists arguing for a scientific theory within the confines of sciences and fallaciously using a scientific theory to argue for non-scientific metaphysical convictions;

d) the mirror image of c), metaphysicians who fallaciously argue that their metaphysical claims necessarily invalidate certain scientific theories a priori.

In both c) and d), the latter does not perforce invalidate the former.

Failing to address these distinctions by erecting one-dimensional strawmen does not properly tackle the complex three-dimensional problem of the interaction between science and religion.

It is quite noticeable on MC that attacks on macro-evolution as an alleged pseudo-science are almost invariably inversely correlated to the degree of actual acquaintance and experience that the person posting the attack has with actual scientific training and research. To repeat a point I made before (and will make again in my upcoming post), a wrong scientific theory is still a genuine scientific theory. Correctness or incorrectness is *not* per se the criterion that demarcates science from pseudo-science.