"Tensions in Contemporary Theology": Some Quotations

 

Tensions in Contemporary Theology (eds. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan F. Johnson, Moody Press) was published in 1976.  Its goal was to critically analyze theological trends operative in the 1960s-1970s.  The theological landscape has changed in the last forty-five years but the essays are still interesting reading.  I haven't read all of them but I did spend time recently reading Bernard Ramm's chapter ("The Fortunes of Theology From Schleiermacher to Barth and Bultmann") as well as Harold B. Kuhn's contribution ("Secular Theology").  I then read the concluding essay by Harold O. J. Brown ("The Conservative Option").

Here a few random thoughts and quotations from the book:

1.  "Evangelicals need to be acquainted with the major theological thinkers of our time.  We cannot expect to commend our own outlook if we show ourselves completely ignorant of the position held by others.  In a certain sense we need to earn our right to disagree, and part of this earning lies in an accurate understanding and appraisal of the position of those who we differ.  One charge which evangelicals have often leveled at others is that they have presented criticism of the conservative stance that manifested very inadequate information, often based on second-hand materials and reflecting a biased approach and a caricature of what the evangelical view is.  We cannot afford to emulate this kind of onesidedness.  Since we want to be treated fairly, we owe it to ourselves and to others to treat others fairly."  Roger Nicole (from the Foreword, p. 7)

2.  "The evangelical needs to learn many important lessons, even from those with whom he disagrees.  They often have managed to make their voice heard in more effective ways than we have.  They sometimes have related themselves to problems and aspirations which may have been neglected in evangelical circles.  Thus, even in places where faithfulness to the biblical message demands that we should disagree, we may cull valuable insights into the mood and spirit of our age.  Furthermore, we ought not to reason that, because certain positions are subject to criticism, they contain no element of truth whatsoever.  In most cases views which command a wide support do embody substantial elements of truth.  We must ever remain teachable and be prepared to find valuable insights, even in places where at first  we might not have been inclined to seek teaching for ourselves.  By broadening the range of our horizon we may be in a better position to understand our own faith and commend it to others."  Roger Nicole (Foreword, pp. 7-8)

3.  "In the broadest definition possible, religious liberalism was the effort to restate the Christian faith in harmony with the Enlightenment, or from the perspective of the Enlightenment."  Bernard Ramm, 18

4.  [A]ll Christian doctrines either are reconstructed so as to conform to these philosophical criteria or are eliminated.  The locus of faith is no longer in what God says (divine revelation) or in what God does (redemption in history) but primarily in what man experiences."  Bernard Ramm, 19

5.  "It is not that liberal theology rejected Holy Scripture.  It relocated its authority.  One of the pioneers in this was S. T. Coleridge, who said that the Bible was the Word of God because it reached him more deeply than any other book.  The power of Scripture was, then, in its spiritual effect upon man and not in its objective inspiration."  Bernard Ramm, 28

6,  "As the orthodox doctrine of God and the Trinity eroded in liberal theology, new efforts were made to restate the doctrine of God.  Liberal theology really started out with pantheism in the theology of Schleiermacher--so claims H. R. Mackintosh.  But this could not be the final resting place of the liberals' doctrine of God.  In order to stress the immanence of God and yet not fall into pantheism, liberalism talked of panentheism.  "God in all things."  This would salvage the doctrine of the divine immanence which was so important to religious liberalism and yet hopefully save it from a pantheism which would be fatal to Christian theology."  Bernard Ramm, 31

7.  "Paul van Buren is usually regarded as part of the death-of-God movement,... he concerns himself with the linguistic aspect of the question.  He begins with the proposition that it is today meaningless to speak of God at all; the laws of human language have rendered the very word God inoperative

"He bases his case for the proposition, 'The word "God" is dead,' upon what he terms the 'verification principle,' by which he means that the function of a statement must determine its meaning.  He contends that the statement 'God exists' is meaningless to the person whose attitude and approach is that of secularism, for it does not fit the standards of empirical verification."  Kuhn, 168

Note: I find it ironic and a little sad that just a few years after this Alvin Plantinga would philosophically trounce the verification principle and reassert traditional theism as a viable intellectual option.  Van Buren simply lapped up the current philosophical currents rather than critically engaging them from a Christian worldview.  The verification principle is now seen to be bankrupt and Van Buren's theology is a relic of the past and has so contemporary staying power.  

8.  "Finally, attempts to erect systems of theology upon the supposed ruins of a revelation which is rejected run counter to what has been deeply felt by the Christian community.  More important still, such systems have an opponent which they refuse to see or to acknowledge--namely, the dynamic which is inherent in the inspired Word, the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, who was the agent of its inspiration."  Kuhn, 170

Note: This is one of my favorite quotations from this book.  It reminds us that theological polemics is not simply a wrangle of words.  The battle between belief and unbelief is one in which the Holy Spirit takes sides.  He is committed to exalting and glorifying Christ Jesus and his gospel (John 16.13-15).  He will not suffer the name of Jesus to be forever demeaned and dragged through the muddy waters of alien theological presuppositions.

9.  "Being a conservative evangelical and accepting the doctrine of biblical infallibility does not require any sacrificium intellectus (the sacrifice of one's understanding or intellectual integrity).  Quite the contrary is true.  It is, rather, other varieties of theology, ones that have enjoyed greater vogue in academic circles, that require such a sacrifice.  Intellectually speaking, we should defend the viewpoint that evangelical theology is not merely a viable option but a superior one."  Brown, 328

10.   "'Dialogue' only a partial possibility.  Prior to regeneration the human mind is inherently incapable of grasping, even merely intellectually, the substance of the biblical message.  Consequently, the dialogue of the believing Christian thinker with unbelieving intellectual colleagues will always operate under severe handicaps.  It is, of course, possible to present the Gospel in such a manner that the difficulty of believing it is magnified unnecessarily.  But it is never possible to present it in such a manner that every difficulty associated faith is removed, particularly in the light of the fact that at least one major impediment to belief lies neither in the message itself nor in its presentation but in the heart of the unconverted hearer.... Even when all possible intellectual roadblocks have been cleared, some barriers will remain, apart from the grace of God and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the unconverted heart.  The unbeliever is not prepared to see his difficulty in accepting the content of the Gospel message in these terms but will believe that certain intellectual or moral obstacles remain to be surmounted.  Thus the unbeliever may well encourage his Christian colleagues in the misapprehension that by a more skillful and subtle approach to the problem, by a more delicate and discriminating sensitivity, by a more thorough command of the attendant facts and related intellectual disciplines, they could carry the dialogue through to successful persuasion.  We must recognize that this is an illusion: when all major and minor intellectual obstacles have been removed, all questions fairly met, and no issues skirted, the Gospel will continue to be rejected 'intellectually' as long as it is not accepted spiritually, that is, as long as repentance and conversion are not present."  Brown, 329-330

11.  "The danger of intellectual respectability.  The evangelical who is concerned to show the intellectual respectability of scriptural teachings set himself a worthy goal; but unless he remembers that he can never fully secure the approval of unbelievers for his doctrine apart from their spiritual conversion, there may come a time when he is tempted to compromise the Bible's proclamation in order to secure greater agreement from the participants in the dialogue.  The greatest scholarly accuracy and the highest intellectual attainments on the part of the evangelist or apologete will not entirely free him from intellectual disrepute as long as he submits, in the final analysis, to the authority of the Bible as the Word of God and affirms the need for personal conversion and salvation by grace through faith.  In each of these doctrines there is something that offends the natural man.  That offense cannot be removed, no matter how tactful or erudite the presentation, as long as the message is not altered."  Brown, 330

12.  "A defective theology may not destroy an individual's saving faith nor his personal relationship to Christ; but it will make it difficult or impossible for him to transmit or teach the truths of the faith to those who come after him."  Brown, 331

13.  "It should now be evident that the least sophisticated fundamentalist, with a naive and perhaps even myopic acceptance of partially understood Scripture, is less likely to make errors disastrous for his faith and salvation than the refined critic who wonders whether God can speak, whether He would use human language to do so, and whether human language is capable of expressing anything unambiguous in which we can unreservedly put our trust."  Brown, 350-351

14.  "The human rebellion against the will of God has in a way proceeded serially against the persons of the Trinity: rebellion against the Holy Spirit in the rejection of inspiration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; rebellion against the Son in the rejection of a substitutionary atonement and redemption through the blood of Christ in the nineteenth and twentieth; now, rebellion against the Father in the denial of creation and even of the objective reality of the universe in the twentieth."  Brown, 353-354

On the Authority of the Bible: Notes for Small Groups

* The following are notes for our church's small group leaders to use.  Not a complete survey; more like some key random thoughts.

The Bible: Notes, Quotes, and FAQs

Some passages to consider and/or discuss in RC

·     Jesus on Scripture

o   Matthew 4.4 (notice Jesus’ use of Deuteronomy in answering the challenges of the devil)

o   Matthew 5.17

o   Matthew 22.29-32

§ Challenges Sadducees because they do not understand the Scriptures (v. 29)

§ V. 31 “… have you not read what was spoken to you by God…” 

·     Jesus understands the written word (Exodus 3.6) as being spoken by God to his contemporaries

o   John 5.45-47

§ Moses wrote about Jesus

o   John 10.35

§ Jesus’ parenthetical comment: “and the Scripture cannot be broken”

o   Luke 24.25-27

o   Luke 24.44-47

·     2 Timothy 3.14-17

o   “sacred writings” lead us to salvation

o   “All Scripture” is inspired (breathed out) by God

§ Authority of Scripture: comes from God

§ Sufficiency of Scripture: able to equip the people of God

·     2 Timothy 4.1-5

o   Preach the word; not our experience

o   People in every age have turned aside from God’s word to false teachers

§ Question: Where do we see this happening today?

o   Timothy cannot “fulfill his ministry” (v. 5) without the Word

·     Isaiah 30.8-11

o   OT counterpart to 2 Timothy 4.3-4

o   Notice the call to write down the word of the Lord (v. 8): God’s intention is for a written word

·     2 Peter 1.16-21

o   Not following “cleverly devised tales” (NASB)

o   Peter mentions his experience of seeing the glory of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9.1-8)

o   And yet Peter looks to the prophetic word as even more sure than his experience (v. 19)

o   V. 21 human will and Holy Spirit both involved in production of Scripture

Meditations from Jude

·     Verse 3: contend for the faith: defend the body of Christian truth against false teachers

·     Verse 20: build yourself up on the faith: need to be feeding ourselves and others with Christian truth

·     Jude points to the OT and the words of the apostles: “remind” and “remember”

o   V. 5 “Now I desire to remind you…”

§  3 examples from the OT in verses 5-7 (and three more in v. 11)

o   V. 17 “… remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ”

·     False teachers: “by dreaming”

o   “… it probably indicates that the false teachers supported their antinomianism by laying claim to divine revelation in their dreams.”  Michael Green (TNTC, 182)

o   Dreams vs. the Word of God

§ Jeremiah 23.25-32; 27.9; 29.8-9

o   Key: God’s word comes from the outside—outside of our human experience—and judges our human experience.  The false teachers generate their own word.

·     Jude keeps together the OT and the apostolic words with the message of Jesus.

o   There are teachers today who wish to keep only Jesus (just the “red letters”) and ditch the OT and the epistles.

o   Jesus endorsed the OT (see above) and authorized his apostles (including Paul!) to teach with authority

Quotations

“How one views Scripture will determine the rest of one’s theology.  There is no more basic issue: Every system of thought that takes seriously the claims of the Bible to be the inspired, authoritative Word of God will share a commitment to particular central truths, and that without compromise.  Those systems that do not begin with this belief in Scripture will exhibit a wide range of beliefs that will shift over time in light of the ever-changing whims and views of culture.  Almost every single collapse involving denominations and churches in regard to historic Christian beliefs can be traced back to a degradation in that group’s view of the Bible as the inspired and inerrant revelation of God’s truth. Once this foundation is lost, the house that was built upon it cannot long stand.

“There is little worth in speaking of the sufficiency of a non-inspired, errant collection of ancient works, which is why the denial of the inspired nature of Scripture inevitably leads to a denial of its ability to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.” --James White[1]

“It is, moreover, an observable fact of history, both past and contemporary, that the degree of the church's commitment to world evangelization is commensurate with the degree of its conviction about the authority of the Bible.  Whenever Christians lose their confidence in the Bible, they also lose their zeal for evangelism.  Conversely, whenever they are convinced about the Bible, then they are determined about evangelism.” --John Stott[2]

"I do not deny that we need continual refinement in our views.  Challenges and opportunities arise constantly.  The Chicago statements on inerrancy and hermeneutics, while compelling, can be improved upon.  But I think Jesus' response to the devil is suggestive for our response to calls to lighten up on our high view of the Bible.  'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God' (Matt 4:4 ESV).  Jesus regarded Scripture as words from God's mouth.  That should be understood analogically, of course, and not crudely literally, but the integral link between God and divine enscripturated speech remains.

"I am optimistic that Jesus' approach to the Tanach, already revered as holy in his day, retains value for Jesus' followers as they approach the whole canon of writings acknowledged in the Bible of the church.  Let me put that more strongly: in light of Jesus' dogged recourse to written Scripture from his temptation to his scriptural words from the cross, how is something like inerrancy not an entailment of discipleship?  Kevin Vanhoozer poses the question this way: 'how can we follow Jesus if we cannot follow with the utmost trust the words that oriented his own life?'"  --Robert Yarbrough[3]

·     Below is a section of notes from a class I taught on Systematic Theology—they may be helpful

Systematic Theology: Scripture (2)

1.    Theological implications flowing from Jesus’ and Apostle’s view of Scripture:

a.    Scripture has ultimate authority and comprehensive authority

                                               i.     Ultimate: highest authority

                                              ii.     Comprehensive: speaks to everything; touches upon everything

1.    Not merely “spiritual” aspects of life

2.    “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that is speaks of everything either directly or by implication.”[4]

                                            iii.     Liberal theological conception of Scripture

1.    “To summarize my view, the Bible is not the criterion of truth.  That criterion is fallibly developed in the always difficult, always tentative process of reflection as it is conducted in conversation with our contemporaries.  Judgments about truth in theology are made in the same kinds of discussions, employing the same open rules of evaluation, that are used in making judgments about claims of history, science, philosophy, and common sense.  To realize this is the contribution of liberalism to Christianity in our time.  I believe it is an enduring contribution, one that conservatives ought to affirm.”[5]  –Delwin Brown

2.    The self-conscious liberal conception of theology flows from differing starting points about the nature of God.  The conception of God within liberalism makes it impossible for there to be an authoritative, inspired revelation from God.[6]

b.    Scripture’s self-attestation

                                               i.     There is no other standard outside or beyond God himself to which he must appeal to validate his authority

c.     Unity of Scripture

                                               i.     Acts 17.11

                                              ii.     Liberalism: “multiple voices” none of which are ultimately authoritative[7]

d.    Inerrancy of Scripture

                                               i.     “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with social, physical, or life sciences.”[8]

                                              ii.     International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”[9]

                                            iii.     Phenomena of Scripture àalleged  errors/problem passages

1.    “The debate over inerrancy frequently comes down to choosing whether to tolerate such problems as “unanswered questions” or to transfer them to the category of “demonstrated errors.”  Often that decision reflects one’s initial attitude toward Scripture and toward critical methods.  If Scripture is accepted as the inspired Word of God, as “the standard that sets the standard,” one will be reluctant to charge it with error—since to do so one must have some other, perhaps higher, norm by which to evaluate Scripture.”[10]

2.    See sheet: “Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions”

                                            iv.     Primary doctrine?  No.  Functions as a sub-set of “authority”

1.    Tends to become central in the midst of battle and argumentation

“When focusing on any doctrine in debate, it can inadvertently become primary though it seems preferable to speak of inerrancy as a distinguishing aspect of an evangelical Scripture principle rather than the primary one.”[11]

2.    Importance of inerrancy

“One good reason for this might be that inerrancy was deemed most conducive to the gospel’s advancement as the message that truly saves sinners, who are located in real-time-space present and are looking to a real-time-space Savior whose work in both creation and redemption is not subject to any passing cultural or ideological whims since he stands outside of them.”[12]

“Being forged in the fires of American evangelicalism, the doctrine of inerrancy provides the platform for a gospel-advancing movement and a defensive strategy to ward off invaders.”[13]

---

     [1]James R. White, Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity(Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 2004), 43-44.

     [2]John R. W. Stott, "The Bible in World Evangelization" in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader edited by Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthrone (Pasadena, CA.: William Carey Library, 1981), 3.

     [3]Robert Yarbrough, "The Future of Cognitive Reverence for the Bible"Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society (57/1: 2014), 17—emphasis added.

     [4]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 2.

     [5]Clark H. Pinnock and Delwin Brown, Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 28-29.

     [6]See my brief essays: “Liberal Theology and Its Pantheizing Tendency.”  Available online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2013/12/liberal-theology-and-its-pantheizing.html.  “Liberal Theology and Its Naturalizing Tendency.”  Available online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/01/liberal-theology-and-its-naturalizing.html.

     [7]Clark H. Pinnock and Delwin Brown, Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 91.

     [8]Paul Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy” in Norman Geisler (ed.), Inerrancy(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 293-294.

     [9]Available online: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

     [10]Harold O. J. Brown, “The Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible” in Phillip Comfort (ed.), The Origin of the Bible(Wheaton: Tyndale, 1992), 44-45.

      [11]Jason S. Sexton, “How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate,” Themelios34 (2009), 34. 

     [12]Jason S. Sexton, “How Far Beyond Chicago?” 43.

     [13]Jason S. Sexton, “How Far Beyond Chicago?” 43.