Marty Foord's Blog

The Sociology of Theologians

2011-11-18T01:17:00.000-08:00

Consider this telling piece of information:

[...] in the patristic era most theologians were bishops; in the medieval period most were monks or friars; while in the modern era most have been professors" (Edward T. Oakes, Infinity Dwindled to Infancy, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), p. 169.

Medieval Primary Sources Online

2011-10-28T21:01:00.001-07:00

I don't know how I've missed this one, but for those who don't know, here is a goldmine of medieval primary sources (especially Sentences commentaries). Enjoy!

Couldn't resist this one ...

2011-09-29T21:15:00.000-07:00

Martin Luther sounding like Scott McKnight

2011-08-24T22:09:00.000-07:00

One of the good emphases that has arisen out of recent NT scholarship is the rediscovery of the kingship of Jesus in the Gospel. N. T. Wright has been particularly central in this recovery. Jesus is not only saviour but also king. In Christ's resurrection he has been appointed Lord of all, ruler of the cosmos. In this capacity Jesus will return to bring all things under his feet.

However, in this "discovery" of Christ's kingship, many-a-NT-scholar has then proceeded to say how deficient the reformers were in this area. There is no doubt that the reformers were particularly focused on the works righteousness of medieval Catholicism, and so concentrated on a works-free emphasis in their Gospel presentations. Who wouldn't have done that in their context? Moreover, the reformers didn't have the benefits of the 20th century revolution in eschatology. But they had a healthy emphasis of Christ as King of all in the Gospel, because they stuck close to the text of Scripture. Here is Luther sounding a little like Scott McKnight:

[The Gospel is] a historical account of Christ, God's and David's Son, who died and arose and was appointed Lord, which is the sum total (summa summarum) of the Gospel. (WA 10 I, 1.10:6).

It also must be remembered that reformers didn't just see Christ as King in the gospel, but prophet, priest, and king. No Gospel is well-rounded without all three.

Chemnitz on Justification

2011-06-28T23:09:00.000-07:00

Martin Chemntiz, known as the "second Martin", is a critical figure for the Lutheran tradition. Here is his opinion on the importance of the doctrine of justification:

Indeed, this Locus is the stronghold (arx) and principle bulwark of all doctrine and the Christian religion, and when it is obscured, adulterated, or subverted, it is impossible to retain the purity of doctrine in the other Loci. (Chemnitz, Loci theologici XV, pars 2:216).

Seems to me that he's blowing it a little out of proportion. I would want to say that the Gospel is of "first importance" (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and justification is but one aspect of it.

The Lutheran Confessional Gospel

2011-03-10T23:08:00.000-08:00

Well here is the definition of the Gospel according to the Formula of Concord V.iv (1577), or officially defined Lutheran Orthodoxy:

The Gospel, on the other hand, we judge to be properly that which teaches what a person ought to believe who has not satisfied the law of God, and therefore is condemned by it, namely, that he or she ought to believe that Jesus Christ has expiated all sins, and made satisfaction for them, and has obtained remission of sins, righteousness before God, and eternal life with no intervening merit from the sinner.

It's interesting there is no mention of the resurrection, new creation, or the establishment of Christ as Lord with his return to judge (Rom. 1:2-4; 2:16; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 2 Tim. 2:8).

Melanchthon on the Gospel

2011-03-10T01:05:00.000-08:00

Here is Melanchthon's most mature definition of the Gospel (in one sentence!):

The Gospel is the preaching of repentance and the promise, which reason does not know naturally but has been revealed by God, in which God affirms that He surely forgives the sins of those who believe in the Son, and He does this gratuitously, not because of any merits or worthiness of ours but because of the obedience of the Son, and He gives them the imputation of righteousness and reconciliation, in which the Son of God, by the voice of the Gospel, consoles and quickens the hearts of believers and frees them from eternal death and makes them temples of God, after having given them the Holy Spirit, who hallows them and kindles movements such as the Holy Spirit Himself is, and gives to believers the inheritance of eternal life: that because of Him, gratuitously, they have the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of righteousness and reconciliation and in the inheritance of eternal life.

Henry of Ghent's works now online

2011-02-21T20:23:00.000-08:00

All of Henry of Ghent's works are now available online as PDF's, hence they are searchable. Unfortunately there are no line numbers, only page numbers. They are here. Enjoy!

Jacob Heerbrand on the Gospel

2011-02-09T19:38:00.000-08:00

The Lutheran theologian Jacob Heerbrand (1521-1600) defines the gospel thus:

"It is the teaching or promise from heaven revealed from the secret breast (sinus) of the Father through the Son. In it is the free mercy of God, remission of sins, freedom from the tyranny of Satan, hell, and eternal death. In it is righteousness, the gift of the Spirit, and eternal life. The Gospel is freely promised and offered to all to be received by faith to those who truly believe in Christ. It is offered and given through and because of Christ." (Compendium, locus de Evangelio, p. 163.)

Stephen Williams on Election

2011-02-07T20:01:00.000-08:00

If there is one doctrine that has had a controversial history, it's election. Christians don't just disagree about it, they get very hot under the collar about it--all sides of the debate. I've just listened to a very thoughtful series of lectures on election by Stephen Williams that I highly recommend. Williams is a very impressive systematician indeed, who has a brilliant combination of erudite exegesis, a deep knowledge of the entire Christian tradition, and a profound grasp of philosophy. Tolle, audi!

Selnecker on the Gospel

2011-02-06T22:28:00.000-08:00

The Lutheran dogmatician Nicklaus Selnecker (1530-1592) defines the gospel as follows:

"The Gospel is the teaching not naturally incorporated into creation but is secretly advanced from the breast of the eternal Father since it was not previously known to all creatures. [It is the teaching] in which God in his immense mercy because of Christ his Son freely promises to all people thoroughly terrified by a sense of God's wrath against their own sin, the remission of sins, the imputation of righteousness, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the inheritance of eternal life, only to those who certainly believe the promises, the benefits themselves to be given because of Christ." Selnecker, Institutio Christianae Religionis (1579) II, p. 8.

Bavinck on Presbyterianism of his day

2011-02-06T21:30:00.000-08:00

All the miser of the Presbyterian Churches is owing to their striving to consider the Reformation as completed and to allow no further development of what has been begun by the labor of the Reformers.

H.Bavinck, 'The Future of Calvinism' The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, (17) 1895

H/T: Bruce Pass.

Awesome blog!

2011-02-02T00:40:00.001-08:00

This is one oft he best blogs I've seen in a while!

Pilgrims, Warriors, Servants - Chapter 2

2011-01-31T19:29:00.001-08:00

The Enigma of Richard Baxter.

Pilgrims, Warriors, and Saints

2010-12-17T18:24:00.001-08:00

Chapter 1 reviewed here.

The Blogging Mojo Has Returned

2010-12-01T19:28:00.000-08:00

Many friends have been asking what has happened to my blogging. The short answer is that I've been inundated with work. 2010 was a killer busy year. However, amidst the hive of college activity I have been chipping away at the PhD (many thousands of words have been written). And, again in short, my topic has evolved. I'm now looking at the doctrine of the "gospel" in the reformation and early post-reformation era. My research on Owen's understanding of the gospel took me back into the medieval and reformation eras. Here I discovered a fascinating story that needs telling. I plan to land the thesis in 2012.

Hence, I hope to blog more with the new thesis topic in mind. In the next little while I intend to review an excellent book Pilgrims, Warriors, and Servants (Latimer Trust, 2010) which the unstoppable Lee Gatiss has edited. I'll be doing it at Meet The Puritans with links from here. Stay tuned.

Wigand on the Gospel

2010-05-24T06:51:00.000-07:00

The little-known but influential Gnesio-Lutheran, Johann Wigand (1523-1587), says this about the origin of the gospel:

They [the NT documents] teach that not some creature but God alone is the author of the Gospel, and indeed, all three persons are involved, namely, God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit; God promised in the OT that he himself had established a time when he would send the seed of the woman, or the seed of Abraham, in whom all tribes of the earth will be blessed. (Syntagma II, p. 616)

What a brilliant Trinitarian and salvation historical summary.

Calvinfest at Trinity!

2009-06-10T00:05:00.000-07:00

Trinity Theological College (Perth, Australia) where I teach recently had it's own celebrations of Calvin's 500th birthday. Peter Adam (Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne) gave a fascinating lecture on Calvin's preaching and I gave a lecture on Calvin's understanding of the gospel. For those interested you can find the MP3s of both talks here. Pictured from right to left is Don West (principal of TTC), Peter Adam, and me.

Durandus of St Pourçain's Sentences Commentary Online

2009-05-22T00:39:00.000-07:00

Durandus of St Pourçain (c. 1275-1334) was a Dominican theologian, who steered a doctrinal course away from his order's great magister Thomas Aquinas. He was deployed by a variety of Protestant Scholastics, not least John Owen. For those who are interested the Thomas Institut of Cologne University has a project to put online all of Durandus's Sentences commentary. Thus far, all of Book I is available in a searchable format here. The online edition is a corrected version of the 1571 Venetian edition (reprinted by The Gregg Press). Enjoy!

The Covenant of Works Pre Reformation

2009-03-24T02:22:00.000-07:00

The covenant of works, whether we agree with it or not, has a long pedigree in the Christian tradition. It wasn't as if it appeared on the scene with Ursinus, Fenner, and Cartright. Recently, whilst reading the Moralia on Job of Gregory the Great (540-604) I found something akin to the covenant of works taught there. And, today whilst reading Boethius' (480-524/5) De Fide Catholica I found something like it here:

He [God] formed man out of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life ; He endowed him with reason, He adorned him with freedom of choice and established him in the joys of Paradise, making covenant aforehand (praefixa lege) that if he would remain without sin He would add him and his offspring to the angelic hosts. (Boethius, De Fide Catholica, in The Theological Tractates, Loeb Classical Library, trans. H. F. Stewart and E. K. Rand, Cambridge: Harvard Univerity Press, 1968, pp. 56-59)

The actual Latin word for covenant (foedus or pactum) isn't used in the original, the English translators of the Loeb addition added it. The original is praefixa lege ("with a prefigured law"), which introduces the idea of a "law" being given to Adam And, moreover, if Adam obeyed the law then he would have made it ultimately to heaven. In other words, eschatology is there in the garden.

The same basic idea (with different frills) is found in Greg Beale's book The Temple and the Church's Mission. He contends that combining the command for humanity "to fill the earth" in Gen. 1 and Adam to "till the garden" in Genesis 2, Adam and Eve's original mission was to Edenise the entire creation--spread Eden (God's presence, a temple-like idea) over all the earth. Adam, of course, failed. But this same mission has been proleptically achieved by the second Adam in his death and resurrection. The final outcome is protrayed in Rev. 21 where the new creation is depicted as a cube (i.e. the holy of holies): the temple / Eden is co-extentive with the new creation. God's intention for his world has been fulfilled through Christ.

Polanus' Syntagma Online

2009-02-22T07:33:00.000-08:00

I happened to be surfing the web recently and stumbled across a great site that has all sorts of medieval, reformation, and post-reformation texts. Most importantly one can get access to Amandus Polanus' great work Syntagma Theologiae Christianae. It's all here.

Bunhill Fields Pilgrimage

2008-11-26T08:55:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, it was my great privilege to visit the tombs of many great non-conformists in London at Bunhill (bone hill) Fields. Moreover, I was joined by two eminent Northern Irishmen who are colleagues in 17th century research: Richard Snoddy (researching James Ussher) and Martyn Cowan (researching John Owen). Richard and Martyn also, like all good 17th century specialists, have impeccable taste in music: J. S. Bach.

Here are Richard (left) and Martyn (right) at the tomb of Daniel Defoe (hardly an inspirational Puritan, but an interesting monument nontheless):

Here's me (left) and Richard (right) at the tomb of John Bunyan, tinker, thinker, and allegorist extraordinaire:

Then of course, here's me at the tomb of the great one himself, John Owen:

Finally, this one's for Mark Jones, Thomas Goodwin aficionado and fellow hunter of gems from the high Puritans. It's the grave of Thomas Goodwin:

What is an Evangelical?

2008-11-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

The word "evangelical" borders on meaningless these days. This is because all sorts of people call themselves "evangelical" that defy what once defined the term. Moreover, there is also the idea, spearheaded by David Bebbington, that evangelicalism began in the 18th century due to certain Enlightenment influences on the Christian tradition. However, from a historical perspective, I've always believed that "evangelical" was a word that Martin Luther originated and began to be used as a reference to "bible alone" and "faith alone" Christians (over and against Roman Catholicism). A fascinating definition upon which I stumbled today is that of the English Elizabethan Puritan, Dudley Fenner (c. 1558 – 1587). A rough translation is something like this:

What is evangelical is that which the gospel obtained. Heb. 2:1-6; Heb. 12:16-17; 25-26. Wherefore it is called the Kingdom of God and Heaven. Matt. 3:1; Mark 9:1; Matt. 11:4. 11-12; Acts 1:3.

The Gospel is all that part of the word of God concerning Christ in the scriptural promises of the old [testament], which having been fulfilled are joyfully announced to all people. Rom. 1:1-2; 10:15-16; 16:26; Eph. 3:5-11.

This is a fascinating definition. It reveals that an evangelical doesn't just believe the gospel but makes it central. Whether we should use the term on not, I guess, depends on the cultural context in which we find ourselves. But it's critical that we know what the word historically meant and what it looked like in practice, so as to inform the present. The word is not important, the concept behind it is. Let's not lose the latter just because the former has become muddled.

Bullinger on Faith Alone

2008-10-22T10:59:00.000-07:00

Luther believed that "faith alone" was the "principle article of Christian teaching"; Calvin spoke of it as the "main hinge on which religion turns", Bullinger spoke of it as a "hook":

[...] it is the hook whereupon the hinge of the evangelical doctrine (which is the door to Christ) doth hang ; and that this doctrine (to wit, that Christ is received by faith, and not by works) is of many men very greatly resisted [...]

(Decades Parker Society 4:37)

Bullinger with Luther's Rhetoric

2008-10-20T16:34:00.000-07:00

Well, it's not just Luther and Musculus who like things beaten into people's heads. Now it's the gentle Bullinger as well:

"But first of all, these words of the Lord in the gospel must be beaten into the head of every godly hearer: 'Think not,' saith he, 'that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : yea, I came not to destroy, but to fulfil them.'"

Bullinger, Decades III.viii, Parker Society 3:253.

Wolfgang Musculus with Luther's Rhetoric

2008-10-16T14:37:00.000-07:00

"The ten words [or commandments] which in my judgement ought to be more carefully beaten into Christian young mens' heads, than the ten predicaments were wont to be in the schools [the medieval universities]"

(Wolfgang Musculus, Loci Communes XI.iii).

Latin lexicons for reformation and post-reformation work

2008-10-07T12:24:00.000-07:00

For those out there who have to work on Latin documents in the reformation to protestant orthodox era, it can be quite painful to find the meaning of Latin words used in the 1450 - 1700 date range. Lots of Latin lexicons focus on the classical era. Look no further! Here is a great help.

Scott Clark, John Owen, and the Reformed Tradition

2008-10-02T03:48:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I happened to read the first chapter of R. Scott Clark's new book, Recovering the Reformed Confession. It is written cleanly and clearly. However, I really struggle with his definition of the reformed tradition:

I shall use the word “Reformed” mainly to denote the theology, piety, and practice of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, not as a proper name of any particular denomination or federation.

This, of course, begs the question why only "Reformed and Presbyterian" churches? It is a huge assumption that needs defending. But then further, Clark tells us what he means by "confession". He makes three points, the first is:

By “confession,” I mean narrowly the sixteenth- and seventeenth century Reformed confessions, which we might call the six forms of unity (i.e., Belgic Confession [BC], HC, Canons of Dort [CD], Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF], Westminster Larger Catechism [WLC], and Westminster Shorter Catechism [WSC]).

Again, why only these 6 confessions? How can this limited sample define what is "reformed"? Surely the tradition is much wider, as Richard Muller shows in his writings. What about the Gallic, Scots, Second Helvetic, and 39 Articles? Moreover, as the tradition developed into the 17th century what about the 1644 London Baptist, Savoy, and 1689 Baptist confessions? Then what about the tradition since the 16th and 17th centuries?

The problem with Clark's assumption becomes explicit in his next definition:

Second, and more broadly, however, I mean the understanding of those confessions as articulated by the classical sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theologians and by those who continued that tradition, the outlines of which are evident to anyone who reads Calvin, Ursinus, Wollebius, Owen, Turretin, Witsius, Hodge, Bavinck, and Berkhof.

Owen? Owen didn't adhere to the Westminster Confession. He helped write what he thought was a superior one: the Savoy. And here we see the problem: Clark has defined what is reformed so narrowly as to unwittingly squeeze out someone like Owen.

The reformed tradition has been notorious for the way it splinters into many fragments . What is needed is a broader understanding of the tradition that recognises what is central and what is not. For example, if we define the tradition according to (say) those who can affirm one of the classic confessions of the 16 and 17th century then we can see what is central to it and what is not.

For example, there isn't a consensus on paedo / credo baptism, or church government. We can differ on these, debate them, but at the end of the day recognise they're not central and so still call each other reformed brothers and sisters who are mission partners. My fear is that defining the tradition as narrowly as Clark does is going to start fights about who is truly reformed when we have much more important fish to fry. We as believers have enough battles on our hands than to fight with each other over minutae.

Hugo of St Victor on the creation of Eve

2008-10-01T16:56:00.000-07:00

"Since, therefore, she [Eve] was fashioned for the man neither as a master nor a slave but as a companion, she had to be produced neither from the head nor the feet but from the side, that he might know she was to be placed beside him [...]."

(De Sacramentis, I.vi.35; PL 176:284C)

Luther On Imputed Iighteousness

2008-09-28T13:59:00.000-07:00

"Christians are like snow covered dung; it is the purity of the covering which the Father sees"

John Owen Today Goes Off

2008-08-23T14:34:00.000-07:00

Well this week was the long-awaited "John Owen Today" conference. It was a fantastic time. Some 40 people from 14 countries met together to talk all things John Owen. It was held at Westminster College, Cambridge. On the left is a picture of the participants on the last day (minus Brian Kay and Mike Horton who had already left at that stage). One of the highlights for me was meeting bloggers with whom I'd corresponded but never seen in person, like Donald John MacLean, Mark Jones, John Tweeddale, and Justin Taylor. It was also wonderful to meet some of the big guns in the flesh (Willem Van Asselt, Mike Horton, George Hunsinger, and Alan Spence).

Waxing lyrical all week was none other than Willem Van Asselt (on the right), Cocceius guru, and all round good guy. The man is so enthusiastic about his subject. He delivered the first paper of the conference, "Covenant Theology as Relational Theology: The Contributions of Johannes Cocceius and John Owen to A Living Reformed Theology”. It was a fascinating analysis of Coceceius and Owen's understanding of the pactum salutis and its relationship to salvation history. Van Asselt argued that when the distinction between the pactum salutis and the covenant of grace is not clearly made, the temporal can get swamped by the eternal, hence the development of eternal justification.

Two other papers that particularly caught my interest were those by Kelly Kapic and Suzanne MacDonald (an ethusiastic person if ever there was one). Kapic spoke of Owen's understanding of the Spirit as gift in response to the Socinian critique of the day. And MacDonald looked at the beatific vision n John Owen, making comparisons with Aquinas (from whom Owen drew bits) and Turretini. What was interesting about the later is that his understanding of the beatific vision had little to say that was Christocentric or involved the material human creation. This surprised me somewhat given Turrentini's status. Owen was profoundly Christocentric and materialist in his eschatology.

Supreme thanks must go to Alan Spence (on the right) who was the mastermind behind the conference. His enthusiasm and friendlessness was a great example to us all. Moreover, he delivered a model paper, I thought, which looked at chief historical problems in Christology and how John Owen might be used to overcome them. He was not simply examining Owen for interest's sake, but thinking about how to address the challenge of modernity, that monster which at times has overwhelmed the church. Hence, the title for the conference: John Owen Today.

In the wrap up session at the end we played with some ideas for the future. It was decided that if possible a book should be published of the papers read at the conference. But it was clear that a future conference should keep looking to the future and how seventeenth century can be used to help the church of today. Let's be in prayer about it.

Lambeth, Rowan Williams, and John Owen

2008-08-11T06:09:00.000-07:00

Well, having to been to GAFCON and also having eyed the meanderings of Lambeth whilst here in the UK, something troubles me. Rowan Williams, it would seem, has a great desire to avoid official church discipline of anyone. This is seen in two ways. Firstly, his ignoring of the date set by the Primates for TEC's repentance (witness Dar Es Salaam), and secondly his idea of a covenant as holding the Anglican communion together. The latter is not quite the same as canon law because it functions on trust rather than something more legal.

In many ways I dislike having to raise the issue of church discipline because the sorts of people who get on the church discipline bandwagon, in my experience, tend to be power hungry and controlling personalities. I've seen too many people damaged by the invalid exercise of church discipline. And, in my experience, the damage is horrendous. For this reason, I can sympathize with Rowan Williams' shyness about discipline.

However, one thing I've learned from John Owen's ecclesiology (amongst other things) is the indispensability of church discipline. Unlike various Puritans I don't see church discipline as of the esse but the bene esse of the church. Quite simply, until Christ returns there will always be the threat of evil inside the very bounds of the visible church itself. The parable of the sower clearly teaches that the visible church is a corpus permixtum. Moreover, the book of 1 John concerns those who once were in the visible church, but now in the name of Jesus (!) are teaching another gospel (hence they are Antichrist). And then, of course, there's explicit mention of the church discipline process in 1 Cor. 6 and Matthew 18.

If evil exists in the visible church then surely it's incredibly naive to think we don't need it. Moreover, because evil exists in the visible church then the discipline process must itself be subject to careful scrutiny. But, having said that the visible church risks grerat damage without it. While the Anglican Communion fails to do anything about the elephant in the Lambeth room, its witness to the watching world will be confused and its membership will become (spiritually) ill. If the instruments of unity aren't working, then they need to be fixed, and fast. The longer this drags on the more havoc it will wreak (as if it isn't enough already). As Paul says, "A little yeast spreads through the whole dough".

Enns, the Enlightenment, Biblical Theology, and the 17th Century

2008-04-06T20:28:00.000-07:00

It seems that one can't have a blog and not write about the Enns issue at the moment! I don't wish to comment on Enns himself but an idea that keeps getting bandied about in all the discussion. It's this: biblical theology and systematic theology are opposed. On one hand we find people saying that systematic theology is the "queen of the sciences" and biblical theology needs to bow to it as a subject to royalty. On the other hand there are those who believe systematics imposes an alien grid over ancient biblical texts that need to be interpreted in an ANE context.

It appears to me that this is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in both directions. Biblical theology and systematic theology cannot be pitted against each other, indeed they can't function without the other--they need each other. Biblical theology can't be done without systematic theology, because the former assumes the existence of a canon of Scripture, which itself is a doctrine arising from systematics. And systematic theology can't arrive at it's integrative conclusions unless it uses the fruit of biblical theology. Moreover, there is one more element in the equation: exegesis. Biblical theology and systematic theology both rely on exegesis.

Hence there is the three-legged-stool: exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology. All three are needed. If one leg is missing the stool can't stand. There is no point in making one the queen of all the others, precisely because they can't exist without each other.

What has the 17th century to do with all this? Well it was pre-modern. The rise of modernity has meant that the three-legged-stool has been pulled apart. The problem with the modern academy is the huge divide between exegesis, biblical theology, and systematics. This did not exist prior to the Enlightenment. One thinks of Amandas Polanus, a 17th century systematician who cut his teeth as a lecturer in OT. John Owen was skilled in both logic and languages, and hence wrote in the genres of commentary, biblical theology, and systematics.

However, my desire is not a return to pre-modern times. That's impossible. Indeed the fields have become so specialized one wonders how it is possible to even have the time or motivation to read outside of one's area of expertise.

What is the way forward? Perhaps it is that scholars from different fields need to work together more. Maybe the problem was that Enns was the only author of his book, and it needed to have several authors integrating their expertise into one powerful whole.

Muller on the Pactum Salutis

2008-01-08T20:53:00.000-08:00

Richard Muller is at it again. The latest Mid-America Journal of Theology recently arrived with a 54 page article by him on the history of the pactum salutis. As usual he breaks significant new ground.

Firstly, Muller shows how, contrary to modern opinion, the pactum salutis developed through a careful reading of Scripture. The doctrine arose in the 16th and 17th centuries precisely because of developments in textual criticism, philology, and exegesis, such that certain Scriptural texts were read in a new light. Theodore Beza's exgesis was a critical turning point here.

Secondly, the theological (not just exegetical) context in which the pactum salutis developed was in the reformers' insistence that Christ was mediator, not just according to his human nature (a la the medievals) but his divine nature as well.

Hopefully this is enough to whet the appetite rather than steal the thunder. Enjoy.

The Killing of History

2007-12-19T19:43:00.001-08:00

The discipline of history (and with it the history of ideas) has fallen on hard times in recent years. Literary critics and social theorists have unleashed upon it a biting criticism. I've just finished reading a lucid and penetrating critique of this recent trend by the thorn of leftist historians, Keith Windshuttle entitled, The Killing of History (Encounter Books, 1996). It's been a helpful contribution to thinking through the historical methodology of my dissertation particularly, and the history of ideas of more generally.

Windshuttle is a lucid writer, who expounds the views of others well. In my opinion, he does a great job of explicating and deconstructing (!) Foucault's take on the history of ideas. Also very telling was his rendition and evaluation of recent approaches to Science, from Popper to Kuhn. Here he shows that many have failed to distinguish between the philosophy and sociology of science, resulting in confusion. This is a work that all historians need to read and digest. And by the way, Windshuttle is the new editor for Quadrant magazine next year!

New Blog for 2008 John Owen Conference

2007-11-07T02:21:00.000-08:00

A new blog has been created about a John Owen conference for next year. It is a stellar cast of Owen scholars who will be speaking: Trueman, Spence, Kapic, Rehnman, Horton and the like. I certainly hope to be there, and meet those of you with whom I've only had virtual acquaintance.

Who should evangelise?

2007-10-15T23:39:00.000-07:00

Whilst recently reading through Owen's early work on ecclesiology Eschol: A Cluster of the Fruit of Canaan (1647), I found an interesting take on the issue of who should do the work of evangelism. Owen, like all the reformers and probably since Eusebius of Caesarea, believed that the "evangelist" is a gift that expired in the first century. So who should do the work of spreading the gospel? Owen believed it was predominantly the work of the preacher. However, he also believed there was a responsibilty on all believers for this reason. Here are Owen's prolix words:

[...] for the work of preaching unto the conversion of souls being a moral duty, comprised under that general precept of doing good unto all, the appointment of some to the performance of that work, by the way of office, doth not enclose it (Eschol Rule I, Works 13:56).

This is an interesting take on Owen's understanding of how believers are guided by the Scriptures. The general principle to do good, specifically resolves itself in the duty to evangelize. It's not as if there has to be an explicit command to evangelize found in the NT.

Owen on Tolerating Doctrinal Differences

2007-09-17T01:04:00.000-07:00

There is much debate in certain circles over the object of justifying faith, does it include assurance or not? John Owen believed assurance was the fruit of faith not integral to it. However, what many do not know, is that Owen understood the difference between the two positions was a point to be tolerated and not contentious about. He believed such a difference was expected given the fall and our finitude. Owen contended that the substance of justification by faith alone was not at stake in this debate. Hence, Christians were to tolerate the differences and fight about things of greater substance:

And if we cannot, on this consideration, bear with, and forbear, one another in our different conceptions and expressions of those conceptions about these things [concerning the object of justifying faith], it is a sign we have a great mind to be contentious, and that our confidences are built on very weak foundations. For my part, I had much rather my lot should be found among them who do really believe with the heart unto righteousness, though they are not able to give a tolerable definition of faith unto others, than among them who can endlessly dispute about it with seeming accuracy and skill, but are negligent in the exercise of it as their own duty (Justification “General Considerations”, Works 5:63).

Wise words indeed.

New Book on John Preston

2007-08-29T07:10:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Moore's new book on John Preston has finally hit the stands. This should fill a lacuna that has been sadly lacking in Puritan studies. You can read more about it here.

Amyraut is Orthodox After All?

2007-08-09T02:43:00.000-07:00

John Owen's understanding of the Sinai covenant has similarities with that of John Cameron, the theologian who greatly influenced Moise Amyraut and the French School of Saumur. Whilst chasing up some issues to do with Owen's federal ideas I came across Richard Muller's paper "John Cameron and Covenant Theology" in MAJT 17 (2006):11-56.

What I found fascinating was Muller's admission, that due to misunderstandings of Cameron, the Salmurian school has been misconstrued in the secondary literature, particularly in its relation to Dort. Listen to what Muller himself says:

This [Cameron's covenantal] pattern has major implications for understanding the Salmurian soteriology. It indicates a covenantal or federal continuity with Reformed predestinarianism that has been left unexamined in discussions of hypothetical universalism. Against, Moltmann's assessment, it offers an element of the Salmurian theology that presses it away from rather than toward Arminianism; and against Armstrong's thesis, it demonstrates the point, recognized even by seventeenth-century opponents of Amyralidianism like Francis Turretin, namely, that views of Cameron and his Salmurian successors were not heresy and, like it or not, were consciously framed to stand within the confessionalism of the Canons of Dort. In the specific case of Cameron's covenantal thought, it ought to be understood not as a protest against various developments in Reformed theology but rather an integral part of the rather fluid and variegated history of early Reformed covenantal thought. (pp. 36-37)

Cameron and Amyraut, whether they were right or wrong, have been the object of much misunderstanding over the years. However, Muller has, yet again, provided a revised assessment of an area within the history of Reformed orthodoxy. As he has continually said, too much historiography of Reformed orthodoxy is driven by current dogmatic interests rather than a desire to listen to the sources themselves, no matter how uncomfortable it may make us.

Derek Thomas on John Owen

2007-08-02T02:52:00.000-07:00

For those interested, you can listen to Derek Thomas' recent lectures on John Owen at PRTS here. They are in MP3 format and downloadable. There are 8 lectures, all of them over an hour. Thomas has some particularly good insights when it comes to relating Owen's thought to Calvin.

John Ball, the "world", and Salvation History

2007-07-23T05:37:00.001-07:00

It's interesting to explore how the Puritans interpret the word "world" in John 3:16. John Owen, of course, takes it to be a reference to the elect all over the world (as do many others like John Flavel etc.). Whilst reading through John Ball's A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace again recently I was struck by his novel interpretation of "world". What is fascinating about it, is his heavy emphasis on salvation history (or in modern parlance, that he reads John 3:16 in light of the biblical meta-narrative).

For Ball, "world" neither refers to the elect in general, nor to people under the old covenant. Rather, "world" is not to be taken "universaliter pro singulis" (every person that has ever lived) but rather "communiter & indefinite" (for both Jews and Gentiles, as opposed to Jews only). Ball believes that John 3:16 teaches that God, having manifested his love by entering into the old covenant with Israel, has now manifested a greater love to the world of Jews and Gentiles.

It goes to show that this Puritan, at least, did not treat the Bible as a repository of timeless truths out of which one proof-texts a system--an accusation made all too often. The fact that the covenant began to be used as a lens through which to understand Scripture, demanded that Scripture be read narratively or according to salvation history. May Puritan caricatures cease.

The Pactum Salutis and it's History

2007-06-08T08:30:00.000-07:00

The historical development of the pactum salutis (the so-called "covenant of redemption" or concilium pacis) is still an area shrouded in some mystery. However, let me recommend a fascinating Ph.D. I'm reading about it: Carol A. Williams, "The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption" (Calvin Theological College: Grand Rapids, 2005).

Williams' research dispels some of the mystery by uncovering Dickson's contribution in the UK theological world to the pactum salutis. He appears to be the first to present it in a form that became accepted as orthodoxy. Moreover, Williams' thesis has some great material tracing the rise and development of federal theology in the UK from 1580 - 1650.

The Atonement

2007-05-19T21:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I picked up a copy of Pierced for our Transgressions (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2007) by Ovey, Jeffrey, and Sachs. You can find out more about it HERE. It is a powerful defense of penal substitution, a doctrine which has undergone heavy criticism in recent times. What is interesting is that many of the modern criticisms are actually very weak and based on misunderstandings of the doctrine.

There is an interesting historical section in PFOT, which looks at past theologians who have taught penal substitution. Interestingly, Anselm is left out of this list, precisely because he did not teach it, contrary to what many propound. His doctrine of sin was to blame. Moreover, many early church fathers are cited showing their adherence to penal substitution, refuting another common myth: that it was only taught late in church history.

Of course, John Owen is listed as one who defended penal substitution. Most people only know about Owen's understanding of the atonement from his (in)famous book, Death of Death, written when Owen was 31 years old early on in his career. However, not many know about Owen's profound and later work A Dissertation on Divine Justice. It is well worth a read to understand the various 17th century criticisms of penal substitution, particularly that of Socinianism. Of note is that these criticisms in many ways were far more sophisticated than the popular modern ones.

John Owen and the New Perspectives on Paul

2007-05-08T06:00:00.000-07:00

Representatives of the New Perspective have claimed that the Reformation tradition has failed to grasp fully the social aspect of the gospel, namely that in Christ the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled and hence the gospel is now for all, Jews and Gentiles. Justification, so Stendahl, Dunn, and co., tell us, concerns the inclusion of the Gentiles into God's covenant people.

Whilst looking at Owen's understanding of evangelism, I have come across several places where he grounds world evangelism on the fact that the Abraham covenant has been fulfilled in Christ, the one who ushered in the New Covenant.

Firstly, from his first published sermon, A Vision of Unchangeable, Free Mercy:

In that economy and dispensation of the grace of the new covenant,
breaking forth in these latter days, whereby all external distinction of
places and persons, (Romans 9:13.) people and nations, being removed,
Jesus Christ taketh all (Ephesians 3:14,15; Matthew 27:19.) nations
to be his inheritance, dispensing to all men the grace of the gospel, bringing
salvation, as seemeth best to him, Titus 2:11,12. For being lifted up, he
drew all unto him, having redeemed us with his blood, “out of every
kindred and tongue, people and nation,” Revelation 5:9. And on these two
grounds it is that the gospel hath in itself a right and fitness to be preached
to all, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Works 8:20-21).

And then secondly from Death of Death:

A second thing to be considered is, the economy or administration of the
new covenant in the times of the gospel, with the amplitude and
enlargement of the kingdom and dominion of Christ after his appearance in
the flesh; whereby, all external differences being taken away, the name of
Gentiles removed, the partition-wall broken down, the promise to
Abraham that he should be heir of the world, as he was father of the
faithful, was now fully to be accomplished. Now, this administration is so
opposite to that dispensation which was restrained to one people and
family, who were God’s peculiar, and all the rest of the world excluded,
that it gives occasion to many general expressions in the Scripture; which
are far enough from comprehending a universality of all individuals, but
denote only a removal of all such restraining exceptions as were before in
force. (Works 10:298).

It goes to show that the Jew / Gentile issue was clearly in the mind of this Puritan at least. But that's what we'd expect because he (and his fellow Puritans) marinated themselves in Scripture.

It's a pity that the Enlightenment has caused such a large chasm to exist between Biblical Studies and Historical Theology. May it be lessened.

Inaugural Greetings

2007-04-11T10:15:00.000-07:00

I've finally decided to get a blog up and going, particularly for those who are interested in the research in which I'm currently engaged. My topic is John Owen's Doctrine of the Gospel in it's Seventeenth Century Context.

My hope is to share ideas for others who are grappling with seventeenth century research as they arise in my research.

Every blessing,

Marty.