Calling all Theoblogians.

Go and find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

Then add your identity in the comments.

This was seen at Mere Comments, a blog by the editors of Touchstone magazine.

The search for ancient and condemned heresies continues in the evangelical church today as we go on to examine if any of the ancient Christological heresies are alive and well today. Are you a heretic? Go ahead, take the heretic challenge! Don't settle for just being like Mike, be like Apollinarius! Or maybe Nestorius! Or even (drum roll), maybe you can be like Eutyches!

I recently bought some college classes on MP3 (through The Great Courses) for my wife and me to listen to together. We bought American History, the Early Middle Ages and the Greek civilization (my wife and I have a continuing debate about whether the Greeks or Romans were better: she reminds me that the Greeks had creativity and brains, but I remind her that the Roman civilization conquered the Greeks, had great logistics and lasted for a very long time). Anyway, we listened to the first American History lecture and I came across a gem of a “big picture jewel.” The teacher was discussing how the Crusades taught the Europeans a variety of things, including how to send out big expeditions and the potential for trade. The Italians controlled the Med, and the Arabs controlled the land routes, so the Western Europeans were forced to go a different direction: by sea. The Portuguese went around Africa, so the Spanish were left with going west, which resulted in the famous expedition of 1492. And all of this because of the Crusades! Since I am intrigued with the Crusades (it is the clearest place where military history and church history collide) in a dark sort of way, this connection with American history made me all the more interested in that dark period known as the Crusades.

I have been out of the loop recently because we just moved to Wheaton (Hello across Chicago, Sam!). We drove across country and have been busy packing and now unpacking all our worldly possessions (4500 pounds of them, half of which were my books). And besides that I have a German test on Friday. I don't know how much I'll be writing now that I have started my PhD program, but I'll still be contributing sometimes. Here is a thought from a book I read over the summer. I've attached my full book report if you want to read it.  

Anything by Roger Olson is worth reading in my opinion. The Mosaic of Christian Belief is a fascinating new way to present systematic theology to students and I think it could be revolutionary to the way we teach theology and write doctrinal statements. The basic content of the book is not all that interesting, but the format is fascinating. Each chapter is a theological topic and is divided into several sections. One section surveys those views that are outside orthodoxy, then another section surveys the various options within evangelicalsim. The reason I think that this is great is that it gives a new model for statements of beliefs which are layered: the first layer is the essential layer, and then the second layer is the debated layer. For example, the belief that Jesus is coming back would be the first layer, while the second layer would be that his coming is premillennial. This format allows us to state what we believe without being dogmatic and condemning. I think that great potential lies in this direction.

Robert Hill: Reading the Old Testament in Antioch

A central part of the history of the early church is the dynamic between Antioch and Alexandria, a dynamic which exists to this day, albeit under different names. But as useful as this handle is for speaking in broad terms, does it accurately reflect the situation? This book sets out to present how the Old Testament was viewed in Antioch, specifically in the commentaries of the primary Antiochenes. 

            The edition of On the Unity of Christ by Cyril of Alexandria which I read has a useful historical background introduction at the beginning of the book. This introduction covers both the life of Cyril as well as giving an overview of his theology. This kind of introduction, which the other books did not have, was a very helpful contribution for me. The only critique I had of the introduction was the strong pro-Cyril attitude. The author is out to rescue the name of Cyril, and so he makes Nestorius the “bad guy” of the story. Unfortunately, there is no discussion at all in regards to the issue of what Nestorius himself actually believed based on the material he wrote near the end of his life, which sounds very little like the Nestorius that Cyril argues against. While it very well may be that Nestorius has changed his mind, it would only be fair at least to include information about these writings and the current historical debate on the exact content of Nestorius’ belief in the introduction. 

The style of the book itself is refreshingly set up as a dialogue between two conversation partners, although since they are never identified it is apparently purely a rhetorical effect. Cyril, as the title indicates, argues for the unity of Christ, as opposed to a conjunction of the two natures as Nestorius argued. Since this work is probably a later work, it is apparently written not against Nestorius himself but against continuing Antiochene influence in the church. Cyril’s argument is fairly clear throughout the work and easy to follow, especially since he repeats himself on occasion. He not only argues against Nestorius and Apollonarius, but he also argues against the later error of Eutychus by saying that the two natures are neither confused or mingled (terminology that appears in the Creed of Chalcedon itself). Cyril’s methodology includes every Scriptural and logical argument he can think of, which are then put into an order which I was not able to discern upon a first reading.

The work by Basil is considerably different than that of Cyril. Basil is fighting the group which stated that the Holy Spirit was fundamentally different than God. While Basil never calls the Holy Spirit “God” he makes it clear throughout his work that this is what he believes, and the lack of a direct statement is theologically astute because it protects Basil from modalism. The specific issue Basil is discussing is the use of prepositions in doxological statements. Basil bases his argument upon extensive discussion of these prepositions as they are used in Scripture as well as a broad array of Scriptural arguments for the Trinity as he understands it. His argument is quite logical and progresses step by step through all the evidence he presents. While he does spend an excessive amount of time on prepositions, this is no grammatical text, but a pastoral desire to see follow people God in a better fashion.

The work by Athanasius begins with an introduction by C.S. Lewis, a note from the translator and a survey of the life of Athanasius. Athanasius wrote On the Incarnation when he was still young and before the Arian controversy had broken out, but the book fits the theology of the rest of his life quite well. The book is in the form of a letter to a certain Macarius in which Athanasius undertakes to explain the Christian faith and the Incarnation in particular. Methodologically he uses the entire metanarrative of history to show how the incarnation is needed. He begins with creation and the fall, demonstrates how the incarnation was needed to fix the divine dilemma, discusses the death and resurrection of Jesus and ends with refutations specifically of the Jews and the Gentiles. I enjoyed reading how Athanasius fit the incarnation into the whole Bible, including the Old Testament: it was not simply a truncated view of the New Testament. The book ends with an appendix which is a letter Athanasius wrote Marcellinus about the interpretation of the Psalms. In this letter he tells his reader the kind of time of life to read virtually every Psalm, based on what is found in the Psalm. While modern readers will debate about whether he was exactly right with each psalm, I think that he has understood the psalms much better than most moderns: the psalms are not to be read simply for intellectual knowledge.

The final two books are compilations of primary sources based around a theme. The first theme is the Trinitarian controversy and includes a selection of writings from most of the main individuals in the debate, including Arius, Alexander, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, as well as the decrees of the council of Antioch and Nicea. Before the writings a historical survey is given to help the reader place the selections into their historical context. The historical overview of the Trinitarian controversy tended towards extreme language at points. A prime example of this is the claim that “[n]o doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament” (2). While it is true that the wording of Nicene is not found there, Nicene does not seem to be a conceptual advance over the New Testament, only a linguistic development. 

The purpose for putting this collection together was multifaceted. It was desired to give English readers a way to read about the debate from the participants themselves instead of being filtered through a secondary interpretation. One of the main hoped for results is increase a sense of the ecumenical spirit as the readers grapple with the diversity that was present in the early church (vii). The methodology is an essentially chronological selection of important texts from the debate, beginning with an historical overview but otherwise presenting no comments on the texts.

Several of the selections were highlights for my reading. The canons of Nicea (51-56) were helpful in illuminating what other issues were important to the bishops of the day, such as castration of bishops, the lapsed, the prohibition of bishops from moving from city to city, and whether one should kneel or stand for prayer. The letter by Eusbius to his church was a fascinating exercise in politics, as Eusebius tries to convince them that his own version has won the day. He goes so far as to explain how to get around the anathematizing of “before he was begotten, he was not”: even before he existed in actuality, he existed in potentiality (60). Athansius coins a great phrase: “Arian-maniacs” (65) This is a helpful book for understanding the debate. Apparently Princeton uses this book in their MDiv theology classes.

The last book was centered around the Christological controversy. Similar to the other volume, it opened with an historical overview and then without further comment presented the works of the major players in the debate, such as Melito, Irenaeus, Origen, Apollinaris, Theodore, Nestorius, and Cyril.

Several of the writings contained interesting points. Melito’s thoughts on the Passover intrigued me for reasons other than Christology.  His homiletics shown through brilliantly with such examples as the Egyptian man who claimed that he was third born, so that the angel of death would not kill (but the angel knew he was lying, so his plan did not work) (36). Melito says that “the events which happen are unimportant apart from their character as parables and as preliminary sketches” (37), a comment which sounds almost modernistic liberal, as he argues that the historicity of the events do not matter. Athanasius remarked that the phrasing “he bore” (Matthew 8:17) is important: if it was simply “he cured”, then it would simply be someone from the outside doing something to us, and would leave us to sin again, instead of fundamentally taking care of the problem (89-90).

Several characteristics appear throughout most of these primary sources. Most of the writers do not treat their opponents in a kind manner. For example, Cyril has strong words throughout his work for his opponent, such as the comment that a certain idea “is nothing but foolishness and stupidity, the frenzy of a crazed mind” (53). These writers treated theology with the utmost importance and worked very hard to convince others of the correctness of their viewpoint.

Another common characteristic is that the authors display a stunning acquaintance with the Bible. In the days before computers and the printing press, their knowledge of verses and ideas from diverse place in the Bible is very impressive. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they practice the same kind of procedure as I have heard too often in evangelical pulpits: the preacher has a great idea and needs to find a text to give authority to his idea.

The hermeneutics of these authors is a fascinating subject. They make some good arguments from contexts of which I would not have thought, although sometimes I would not make the same argument. Cyril argues against the conjunction idea of the incarnation by appealing to psalmic passages where the psalmist says he is bound to God. Since the psalmist is not thereby worshipped, then neither should the son who is conjoined to God. But since the son is indeed worshipped, the conjoining idea is wrong (73).

Many of the logical arguments used by the fathers were also somewhat suspicious in my ears. For example, Athanasius argues for the orthodox view on the basis of its lacking a specific name. As soon as a group gets a name (Arians, Marcionites, Valentinians, etc.), they have passed over into heresy. But a Christian is simply a Christian, because they follow Christ and not a person (64-65).

One of the greatest contributions of reading these authors is that we get a sense of the times and how people thought. Seeing Scripture and theology from other perspectives helps to show us blind spots in our own theology and understanding. While the effect is much more dramatic if we travel to other countries, a similar effect can be found by reading the primary sources in history. Part of this effect is seeing what kinds of beliefs are automatically assumed by them, such as the impassibility of God by Cyril (117). An underlying anti-Semitism can be seen on occasion, such as the reference by Basil to the Jews of Stephen’s time as “Christ-killers” (45). Basil assumes it is clear that salvation is through baptism. “How are we saved? Obviously through the regenerating grace of baptism” (46).  Basil assumes that slavery can be a good institution on occasion (80). The repeated references by Arius to Alexander as “Pope” was disconcerting at first (29). It is easy to forget that “Pope” was not always limited to the bishop of Rome.

In contrast to the previous thought, on the other hand, it is also interesting how some things never change. Even though many assumptions are different, many of the same battles are being fought today. For example, Athanasius records the various views of the creation of the world, which sound fairly similar to some of the battle lines today in that very area (26-27).

            This past semester I did some reading in historical theology in the ancient church. I've put together some reviews of those primary and secondary sources I read, many of which were interesting. Happy reading! The first is a general overiew of the period.

            This is a very ambitious book: Gerald Bray is not afraid of a challenge. He has undertaken to document the complete history of biblical interpretation, from the very beginning to the date of publication (1996). This is no small feat because the Bible is likely the most interpreted book in the world, with libraries worth of interpretations over the past two thousand years. But in spite of the difficulties, I think that Bray has done an excellent job in this endeavor. Granted, it did take him almost 600 pages, but the result is a readable and accessible overview of how the Bible has been interpreted throughout the ages. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the broad view of how those who have gone before read the Bible.

            The book was written because of a distance the author felt between scholars and the church. Scholarship in the area of biblical interpretation has exploded in the past one hundred years, but instead of helping the church it has progressively moved farther away from the church. The church, on the other hand, has continued on its preaching, but bewildered by the enormous amount of scholarship has ignored much of the work done by scholars. In this lack of communication Bray has written to seek to show the history of biblical interpretation to help the church see the history of biblical interpretation and to see what the current trends are among scholars. Here is how he admirably achieves his very ambitious goal.