A perhaps confusing conclusion to an inadequate essay

Having looked at history through the eyes of Barth, it seems that he understood his great battle to be with prolegomena to Scripture. His view of revelation and his Christology were driven by his attempt to escape from the epistemological presuppositions of his time and to establish a pure way of allowing God to speak. McCormack rightly makes the point that while Schleiermacher was concerned to establish the independence and absoluteness of religion, Barth was seeking to establish the independence of revelation. In this, the two men find both their similarity and their difference. In his desire to remove God’s Word from underneath the scalpel of historical criticism, Barth separated the Word of God from the Bible and located it in an experience of the Bible instead. In this, Barth was unable to himself escape from a philosophical prolegomena which he himself had inherited from Kierkegaard, despite distinguishing himself from some aspects of it. Having charged others with the crime of the possession of a theological prolegomena, Barth himself is not immune to the charge.

Unity and Distinction, but not Balance

Unity and Distinction: some helpful thought tools. Here's the guts of it, from Graeme Goldsworthy:

Everything in existence has some point of unity with every other thing. Every thing in existence has some point of distinction from everything else. Unity and distinction form the structure of reality, and it is so because that is the ontological essence of God and the way he has made all things. This enlightens us about all aspects of reality as we try to understand relationships. The examination of the biblical data in their salvation-historical progression leads us to concerns about the relationship of the parts to the whole, including the relationship of the OT to the NT. Unity and distinction, along with their perichoretic relationship, also points us to the relationship of biblical, systematic, and historical theology.

/End simple bit.

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

For you hardcore theology nerds out there, an excerpt from this article by Graeme Goldsworthy over at Beginning with Moses.

The article is a response to Carl Trueman's article, which somewhat blames the dominance(?) of biblical theology for the paucity of doctrine in protestant churches.

The payoff, however, isn't so much in their discussion of that issue, but in the helpfulness of Graeme's thinking. He suggests that in theological discussion, thinking of balance between issues such as God's sovereignty and human responsibility is unhelpful. He suggests that unity and distinction are better categories to use.

I haven't just quoted it because it's saying what I've been saying for a bit, but because I think the whole paradigm of thinking that he uses is so much more helpful than the alternatives.

To return to the Trinity, perichoresis is a term used to describe the fact that we cannot assert the unity of God without also asserting the distinctions of the persons of the Godhead. Thus, Christian theism is neither a modalistic-monistic theism, nor a co-operative tritheism. In the words of Cornelius Van Til, unity and distinction are equally ultimate. I would add that to assert equal ultimacy is not served by balance as well as it is by coinherence or perichoresis. We can see the ravages of balance when we look at the Trinitarian and Christological heresies that led to so much systematic formulation in the early church. Balance suggests an interchangability that, in the end, produces modalism. The insight of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was that, in the matter of the two natures of Christ, balance does not suffice. It was the nature of heresy to try to balance the two natures. Both Ebionism and Docetism said balance could never be achieved under any circumstances and, therefore, one or other nature had to be eliminated. Apollinarianism attempted to balance by removing the spirit of man from Jesus so that the Spirit of God had somewhere to fit in. The ultimate balancing act was Nestorianism, which asserted that the two natures of Jesus could only mean that he was also two people 'glued together' (as it were).

The Christian theistic understanding of the ontological Trinity, then, directs us to the way ahead in the question of all relationships.

As it is in the Trinity, says Graeme, so it is in all of reality. Unity and Distinction.

Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug? (part 2)

Sorry about that break in transmission.

To add to the weight of Kung's theory that we should all just get along, Karl Barth wrote a letter to Kung (that Kung has placed in the front of his book) saying that what Kung says about his doctrine is all accurate. He's not twisted anything that Barth believes.

Sounds good, doesn't it! A protestant and Catholicism agreeing on Justification!

Unfortunately, it's not as good as all that.

Firstly, Kung's version of Catholicism isn't what the infallible words of the Pope (backed up by the council of Trent) actually teach. It's the opinion of some modern (and more Biblical) Catholic scholars, but not the official teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. More's the pity.

Secondly, the bits of justification that Kung is dealing with are so narrow as to make it pretty easy to get agreement on it. They essentially are both anti-Pelagian, and that's about as broad as the agreement can be said to extend. Alistair McGrath has noted that in this sub-section of doctrine, even Calvin and the Catholic church could be said to agree! Even I agree that Manchester United play football, kinda.

Lastly, the implications of the doctrine of justification, all the things that are implied by it, are massively different across the protestant and Catholic divide. While the words may be the same, the implications are a world apart.

Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug?

Hans Kung, in his doctoral thesis "Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection", proposed that the Protestant Karl Barth was in 'fundamental agreement' with the Catholic teaching on the issue of Justification.

Essentially, he's saying: Why are we all arguing? Protestants and Catholics have overdone the differences between us just in order to keep a difference between us. Why not recognise that we're more similar than we think and just get along?

To be continued... chatting with my wifey. Sorry to keep you in suspense.

Why has the church failed???

Why does society still suck? Why doesn't the gospel convert everyone who hears it? Why the denominational wars and so many people who proudly wear the badge 'Christian' and yet seem to deny it by their actions?

Emil Brunner has an interesting answer:

No Christian possesses absolute faith, no one is is really wholly converted, if regard these expressions empirically.

It also forms part of the incognito of Christ that the final significance, the absolute turning point, which His Cross means, can never appear historically in its effects.

It's all because of the 'incognito' of Christ, his veiled-ness. Reckon he's onto something?

How does God give the Spirit?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure. But I do know how he doesn't give Him to us.

My translation of John 3:34 (which, some Greek scholar can correct me on later) I think is actually more encouraging than the standard:

"For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. "

I think a more literal rendering for the final phrase would be:

"for he does not give the Spirit with a measuring cup."

I really like that. It's not all gushy about how generous God is, it's a beautifully negative statement about God not using a measuring cup when he liberally pours out the Spirit. I like that image. No stingy shop owner making sure he doesn't give too much away, no finicky worrying about putting too much flour in a cake.

God just pours.

A bit dusty...

Luther reckoned the early church fathers were to the Scriptures what a sackful of coal dust is to a glass of milk. Fair call?