canon-formation-may-june-2010

THE RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS ❘ THE APOCRYPHA QUESTION ❘ THE DA VINCI CODE “CANON”

MODERN REFORMATION

CANON FORMATION VOLUME

1 9 , NUMBER 3 , M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 , $ 6 . 5 0

MODERN REFORMATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS m a y / j u n e

2 0 1 0

|

v o l u m e

1 9

n u m b e r

3

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Executive Editor Ryan Glomsrud Managing Editor Patricia Anders

Canon Formation

Marketing Director Michele Tedrick Department Editors Ryan Glomsrud, Reviews Michael Horton, Final Thoughts Staff | Editors Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Elizabeth Isaac, Copy Editor Ann Smith, Proofreader Contributing Scholars Michael Allen Peter D. Anders James Bachman J. Todd Billings John Bombaro Jerry Bridges John N. Day Adam S. Francisco David Gibson W. Robert Godfrey T. David Gordon Gillis Harp D. G. Hart Paul Helm John A. Huffman, Jr. Daniel R. Hyde Ken Jones Julius J. Kim Philip J. Lee Jonathan Leeman Richard Lints Korey Maas Keith Mathison R. Albert Mohler, Jr. John Warwick Montgomery Kenneth A. Myers Roger R. Nicole Robert Norris J. I. Packer Craig Parton Mark Pierson Lawrence R. Rast, Jr. Donald P. Richmond Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie David Robertson Rod Rosenbladt Justin Taylor Kate Treick David VanDrunen Gene E. Veith David F. Wells Donald T. Williams William Willimon Todd Wilken Paul F. M. Zahl Modern Reformation © 2010 All rights reserved.

1725 Bear Valley Pkwy.

Escondido, CA 92027 (800) 890-7556 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org ISSN-1076-7169

S UBSCRIPTION I NFORMATION US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR

$32 $25 $39 $58 $65

10 Sufficient for Faith and Practice: Covenant and Canon The close connection between canon and covenant is crucial for understanding the way in which the Bible regulates the faith and practice of the people of God.

by Michael Horton Plus: The Bible As We Know It Plus: Canon and Catholicism Why We Don’t Have the Apocrypha in Our Bibles

18 Is the Reformation in Italy Over? An Interview with Reverend Andrea Ferrari A newly ordained Italian minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America talks about his daunting yet exciting missionary task of establishing a federation of Reformed churches in Italy.

by Simonetta Carr

23 On Faith and History How can we be sure that the Bible is an authentic and trustworthy account of ancient history? The author compares ancient historians Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Livy with church historian Luke.

by Shane Rosenthal

28 Gospels, Gospels Everywhere?

Can the Gnostic texts—and the Jesus they present—be harmonized and therefore included with the New Testament? How can we know which gospels the earliest witnesses considered most credible?

by Mark A. Pierson COVER: COMSTOCK IMAGES

2 YR $58 2 YR $70 2 YR $104 2 YR $118

In This Issue page 2 | Letters page 3 | Ex Auditu page 4 | Ad Extra page 6 Interview page 33 | Reformation Resources page 37 | Reviews page 38 | Final Thoughts page 44

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 1

IN THIS ISSUE

Chicken and the Egg or Cart Before the Horse?

“W

hich comes first, the chicken or the egg?” is one of those questions signaling an unanswerable conundrum. This issue takes up the question of the formation of the Bible or “canon,” meaning the official list and “rule” of Old and New Testament books. Readers may come to this topic from different starting points, but here is the question that frames much of what follows: Does the Word of God create the church or does the church officially decide what constitutes the Word of God? Put another way: Did the church establish the canon or did the Bible create the church that afterward recognized the books of the Bible to be what they are, the canonical Word of God? Unfortunately, many evangelicals today think this is either an unsolvable “chicken or egg” conundrum, or worse, that the church acted out of its own authority to create the Bible, which is the Roman Catholic position. From a biblical and Reformation perspective, however, canon formation is not a chicken/egg conundrum but a problem of some who would mistakenly put the cart before the horse. Therefore, our common theme once again is that it is God who works and we who respond; the Word and Spirit together found the community of faith who maintain these books for the purpose of preserving the record of God’s promises.

Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton begins with an explanation of the relationship between covenant and canon. God’s design includes making his covenant promises known in covenant documents—the two are virtually indistinguishable in fact—so that the New Testament canon is a function of the New Covenant. Leon Brown addresses the further question of the Roman canon, which differs from the Protestant by including several “apocryphal” books of questionable authenticity.

Next, even though we have a “closed canon” of Scripture, this does not mean that the work of recovering the Bible for a modern reformation is completed. To the contrary, Simonetta Carr interviewed the Reverend Andrea Ferrari who is “continuing” the Reformation in that bastion of Roman Catholicism, Italy. White Horse Inn producer Shane Rosenthal reflects on the history of history, or the way classical authors such as Thucydides and Herodotus (inventors of history as a genre) plied their trade in contrast to the most famous of biblical historians, Luke, the author of the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. In a remarkable turn, Christ’s resurrection from the dead is highlighted as a key factor that influences the way New Testament history is recorded and Christian arguments are constructed. Nothing could be farther, however, from this Christian perspective on history and the resurrection of the body than Gnosticism and so Mark Pierson, vicar at University Lutheran Chapel in Los Angeles, offers a thorough discussion of the various Gnostic gospels that have received so much hype in recent years. Finally, we feature an additional interview with Paul Maier, coauthor of a book that interacts with some of the more far-fetched claims of Dan Brown’s novels. More than any other popular work, Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has encouraged the mistaken notion that the fourth-century Emperor Constantine “created” the canon at the Council of Nicea, a view Maier easily combats.

This issue circumscribes the topic of canon formation in order to make sure that Reformation Protestants are all pulling in the same direction to recover Scripture in 2010—with the cart being pulled along by the horse!

Ryan Glomsrud Executive Editor 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

NEXT ISSUES July/August 2010 Interpreting Scripture September/October 2010 Rightly Dividing the Word

LETTERS y o u r

For about five years now, I’ve been consistently reading Modern Reformation and listening to the White Horse Inn. You’ve never failed to deliver to me and to my friends thoughtful articles and explosive proclamations. And this year’s theme promises to be rich indeed, judging from the January/February issue (“Recovering Scripture”). Having been a captive of the Scriptures (my remaining corruption notwithstanding) for over 35 years, I have seen what one thought of disregard—let alone a generation of neglect—can bring.

I commend you for lifting up not only the private reading of and meditation on the Word of God but also its proclamation, which I am appreciating more and more the older I get. Michael Horton put it well, “God has chosen preaching as a social event of hearing that makes strangers into a family.” It reconciles us to one another and to God. As we set ourselves to the task of recovering Scripture, it would be to the end of reforming preaching, primarily from the pulpit to the pew, but also from the pew to the home, the workplace, and the neighborhood. May the Lord continue to give you a voice.

Steve Barney Eureka, California P.S. “Funerals from Hell” by Craig Parton (January/February 2010) is such a timely vocational word. Good doctrine, good advice, well told. (Score one for the trial lawyers!)

of leading the way with a Christian worldview, we copy our secular friends in many ways. As Christians we have taken on so much of the world that not only do we try to be like our secular classmates and workmates in “outsourcing,” we also imitate them in their thought processes.

It has been established throughout history that people generally follow their religious leadership, even though they attempt to greatly compromise the morals involved with their desires. We need many more articles like this one! Our people need to be awakened!

a n d

o u r s

tice and grow in the discipline of writing more. Thanks again for Modern Reformation.

Dr. Ron Daves, Pastor Temple Baptist Church Columbia, South Carolina

William A. Hill Ft. Huachuca, Arizona

Adequate words to express my thanks to Craig Parton escape me. It is rather ironic that just hours before I read his article (“Funerals from Hell,” January/February 2010), I was lamenting to a friend about the unwillingness of much of the church to acknowledge that death is not to be celebrated but mourned as the final ax-blow of the Fall. I now realize how important it is for me to carefully draft my funeral requests. If those at my funeral do not leave with a clear understanding of who God is and what was accomplished at the cross, the gathering will have been for naught.

Brian Grawburg Wilson, North Carolina

The “Recovering Vox Dei” article

by Nate Palmer (January/February 2010) was very well done! Not only do we outsource our Bible reading but we also outsource its application.

We have become such a spectatororiented people that we outsource the work God wants us personally to do.

We need to support missionaries, pastors, and other Christian workers, but that should not eliminate us from witnessing at every opportunity. Instead

t h o u g h t s

I enjoy reading Modern Reformation and read it from cover to cover each issue. Thank you for providing such a biblically helpful resource. I read and agreed with the article about poems

by Douglas Bond, “The Devil Hates Goose Quills: And Why it Matters to the Church.” I took the advice and sat down and wrote one for Easter this year. I'm trusting to put this into prac-

Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1725 Bear Valley Parkway Escondido CA 92027 760.741.1045 fax Letters@modernreformation.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters. Letters may be edited for content and length.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 3

EX AUDITU e x a m p l e s

o f

c h r i s t - c e n t e r e d

s e r m o n s

Who Has Believed Our Report?

W

ho has believed what they heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been

nothing wrong in his entire life and grew old revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of and died of natural causes.

You might be tempted to dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty eulogize him. So we don’t ask the question, and we that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected by just typically assume that everyone goes to heaven. men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we If we eulogize, speak well of the person, it poses another hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we question. The person might have been good. Let’s say for the did not esteem him. Surely he has borne our griefs and carsake of illustration, he was, in our estimation, very good, ried our sorrows, yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by extremely good. I know people like this—I am not one of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgresthem—but I know people like this, and I have said to them sions, he was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement on occasion, “I know you’re a sinner because the Bible says for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are we’re all sinners, but there’s no empirical evidence in your healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, life that you are. You’re so very good.” But if that’s the case, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him then I want to pose the question: No matter how good they were, were they good enough to get to heaven? the iniquity of us all. (Isa. 53:1–6) On the heels of that, then, if we’re going to judge if the person was good enough to get to heaven, whose standard I feel compelled this morning to offer a little bit of a disof goodness do we use? Now, the Bible solves this dilemma claimer on this text. I have never preached this text at a for us very clearly. It says that the standard of goodness in funeral. While I was visiting Jim the last month of his life, I order to enter heaven is perfect obedience to God’s law. God shared and read with him several texts of Scripture, and this says to us that whatever your standard is—you might have is one of them. He resonated with this one. After I read it and a huge bell curve; you might be so tolerant and accepting explained it to him, he spoke of it and mentioned it on a that you accept almost anything as a standard to get to couple of occasions afterward. This text stood out to him. We heaven—God says to us in Scripture, “Here’s mine.” It’s might say it was one of his favorites of all that I read to him. kind of like God says, “It’s my heaven, and here’s my stanYou might think it rather strange that what stood out to him, what resonated with him, was this verse in Isaiah dard. You must love God with all of your heart and all of 53:5: “He was wounded for our transgressions.” Now that your soul and all of your mind and all of your strength, and puts me in a difficult position. First of all, to explain why you must love your neighbor as yourself.” that text would be a comfort to Jim on his deathbed, but A young man came to Jesus one day and he said to Jesus, also the difficulty I have here this morning of explaining “Good teacher.” Jesus looked at him and responded, “Why are and proclaiming a text that has the word “transgressions” you calling me good? No one is good but God.” The young in it. We don’t typically do this at funerals. I am sure you man avoided that issue and asked, “What must I do to inherit came expecting a typical funeral this morning with a eternal life?” Now there’s our question. Jesus answered, “Well, eulogy, and that is our normal custom in American funerlet’s see, honor your father and your mother, don’t commit als: to eulogize, not to speak about transgressions. adultery, don’t steal, and don’t lie.” The young man brashly Now whatever you’re reading in the paper these days said to Jesus, “All of these things I have done since I was a about transgressions, let me be really clear that the young lad.” Jesus, having the advantage of being able to look Hebrew word here in Isaiah 53:5 is even worse than you into a person’s heart, said, “There’s one thing that you lack. Sell might imagine: it is rebellion against God for which puneverything that you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.” ishment is due. Not a likely funeral text. We want to talk This is Luke 18. The young man lowered his head and walked about good things—we want to say good things. But if we away because he was a man of great wealth. eulogize, if we say something good about the deceased, if Now I want to be really clear at this point that Jesus waswe spend our whole time doing that, it raises a question, n’t saying you could buy your way into heaven. That wasat least in my mind. I wonder if we know things in the pern’t his purpose at all. That would be a misapplication of that son’s life that would cause us to doubt whether or not he text. He was zeroing in on the one thing the young man was good. I suppose it’s all fine and well if you have an could not do. Because, you see, he had fallen under the hypupstanding church member who had seemingly done notic spell of the Tenth Commandment: coveting. That is to 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

say, there in that account in Luke 18, getting into heaven is impossible. It can’t be done. There’s not one of us here who would qualify, even the holiest among us. In fact, Jesus in that very chapter makes this point to those who were “confident in their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else”—the ones who thought, “If anybody has a shot to get into heaven, it’s me.”

Jesus told this parable: Two men went to the temple to pray. The one man was a Pharisee—now a Pharisee in your mind might be somewhat misunderstood; they tend to get a bad rap by the way we use the word. These were good, religious people. It was their intent to do everything they possibly could within their power to do what God told them, down to how much they carried on the Sabbath, and how far they walked so as not to violate the Sabbath. These were meticulously good people. The Pharisee, the religious good person at the temple, prays, “God, I thank you that I’m not like other men: robbers, adulterers, evil-doers”—and he points to the tax collector next to him—“or even like this tax collector.” Now I don’t know if you know what a tax collector was in Jesus’ day, but think about an IRS agent who has not only audited you but swindled you. That’s a pretty close idea of what we have here. The tax collector was at prayer with this good religious person. The tax collector stood at a distance, Luke 18 says; he would not even look up to heaven, but he beat his breast and said, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

The Pharisee says, “I fast twice a week, I give a tenth of all I get.” He was eulogizing himself. The tax collector got it. The tax collector got what I hope you’ll get today. The tax collector got that there was no way no how that he was ever going to make it into heaven if the standard was perfect obedience to God’s law. He confessed himself a sinner. Jesus asks his disciples, which one of these went out justified? Which one of these went out accepted by God? The amazing thing about the Bible and about Jesus’ words here is that he points to the tax collector and says, this man, not that other one.

That other one doesn’t need salvation. He will go very happily, very religiously, very well and very morally into an eternity in hell. This tax collector went home justified before God. Now all of the world’s religions that you might know of— and sometimes, unfortunately, Christianity too—tell you that the way to get into heaven is being good enough for God. I want to declare to you today that this is so wrong, so tragically wrong, as to be almost pernicious and evil. Christianity says that the standard into heaven is God’s perfect law and by that standard there is not one of us who measures up.

Then the Bible announces the euangelion, which is the Greek word for “good news.” I believe this—no, I know this is what resonated with Jim: God saves transgressors. That’s what the text says: He was pierced for our transgressions. You will read that only in the Bible. You will only know that if, like the tax collector, you come to the end of your rope, fall on your face beating your breast, crying out for the only thing that you can possibly appeal to. You cannot appeal to your goodness, you cannot appeal to your performance, you cannot appeal to your wealth, your intelligence, your good looks, or anything else or anyone else—you can only appeal to the

mercy of God. He was pierced for our transgressions. Only the gospel, the good news of the gospel declares, dear saints, dear friends, dear family, that someone, Isaiah says—he doesn’t identify him—someone suffers and indeed dies. He was crushed for our iniquities, pierced and crushed for our transgressions. This is very odd and I think this is amazing. You might be able to understand a world religion or a world religious leader saying, “Follow me, follow my example, live a good life, do the best you can and it’ll all work out; it will all come out in the wash.” But this is amazing. Someone takes the punishment that I deserve? Someone takes that for me?

Now I will freely admit if you’re sitting there thinking, “I don’t like all of this business of talking about sin and punishment and judgment and wrath,” I don’t like it either! I don’t like to spend a great deal of time thinking about my transgressions. But if the standard is that we are not all we should be—if that’s all the standard is, that we’re just not all that we might be—then I think it would be more amazing to the point of being ridiculous that somebody would have to die.

But if I have real transgressions against a holy God, who is my Creator and has the right to ask me to live as he is, this makes complete sense. We do that to our own children. We want our children to live as we instruct them. Then if he is my Creator, he has a right to ask that. If I have rebelled against him and incurred transgression upon transgression, then I am looking for some mercy here and a way out. I would like to declare to you today that way out. Because here in Isaiah 53 it says that “he”—whoever “he” is—was pierced for our transgressions. In fact, just to make sure we don’t miss it, he says: “All we like sheep have gone astray.

We have turned, every one, to his own way.” So there it is: All of us have turned away from God. “And the Lord has laid our iniquity on him”—whoever “he” is.

Now, work with me here please. Who would “he” have to be? If someone is going to die for me, for my transgressions, who would he have to be? He would have to be someone who is truly human because human beings—namely, you and I— have sinned. But here’s the catch: he would have to be a human who didn’t have any sins of his own; he would have to be truly righteous—I mean, sinlessly perfect—to stand in for me. But there’s more: he would have to be very powerful, because if the punishment for my transgressions is supreme— that is, if the punishment for my transgressions is something I can’t make up—there’s no amount of crying, money, or good works that could possibly overcome the weight of my sin. A lot of people have a scale; and if there is a scale, people think that when you get to heaven, if your good outweighs your bad, then God lets you in. Well, technically, that’s true. If on one side there is no bad, and on the other side there is just perfectly good, then that’s true. But therein lies the problem, at least for me—I don’t know if some of you would admit this too. If the punishment for my transgressions is supreme, eternal death of body and soul, the wrath of God just upon my sin, then I am in Trouble with a capital T. If somebody is going to stand in and bear the weight of that anger of God against my sin, he’s going to have to be somewhat powerful. He’s going (continued on page 43) M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 5

AD EXTRA a r t i c l e s

a s i d e

PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth

H

ow old is the earth? Does an honest reading of the opening chapters of

interpretation of the Scriptures in question, and sciGenesis confine creation to six days a few thousand years ago, or does it entific evidence eventually persuaded them that the allow for an origin of much greater antiquity? These questions are hardly sun was indeed the center of our solar system. new. Scientific assertions suggesting an alternate interIn this context, it is important to recognize that science did pretation of the length of creation began more than 200 not prevail over Scripture. Scripture was and remains true. years ago, well before the days of Charles Darwin. With a Scientific evidence only served as a God-given aid in selectdebate more than two centuries in the making, one might ing the more accurate of two plausible, Bible-honoring reasonably expect that Reformed scholars long ago resolved interpretations. The CSC report suggests we are at a simithe issue. In fact, the much-sought resolution has proven lar crossroads concerning the age of the earth, but without elusive. In 1998, the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) sufficient evidence to tip the scales one way or the other. commissioned a Creation Study Committee (CSC), made up The CSC commendably included several scientists, of both Bible scholars and natural scientists, to consider the though none were geologists. So what would a geologist add relevant Scriptures in light of the various existing interpreto the discussion? As practicing geologists committed to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, in keeping with tations and scientific evidence. The report, submitted after Reformed tradition, the eight authors of this article maintain two years of investigation, did not recommend a definitive that the “large number of observations over a long period of answer, but did at least conclude that it is possible to believe time” mentioned in the CSC report have already been made, both in an ancient earth and the inerrancy of Scripture. The and the data are sufficient to unequivocally answer the statement below is extracted from the concluding pages of question. We also understand, however, the inherent difthe 2000 Report of the Creation Study Committee. ficulty that people have in assessing a vast body of scientific literature filled with terms and jargon that often require Clearly there are committed, Reformed believers who years of schooling in very specific fields to comprehend. are scientists that are on either side of the issue regardSuch difficulties have landed even well-read and godly indiing the age of the cosmos. Just as in the days followviduals such as Martin Luther on the wrong side of these ing the Reformation, when the church could not decide between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the debates. Luther addressed the heliocentric theories of solar system, so today there is not unanimity regarding Copernicus in his day as being little more than the pursuit the age question. Ultimately, the heliocentric view of vanity since Scripture clearly speaks of the sun moving won out over the geocentric view because of a vast preand not the earth. ponderance of facts favoring it based on increasingly In this article, we wish to provide our brothers and sisters sophisticated observations through ever improving telin the body of Christ with a few general observations, some escopes used by thousands of astronomers over hunclarification of a common misconception about our science, dreds of years. Likewise, in the present controversy, a and two specific examples that speak convincingly that large number of observations over a long period of time God’s earthly creation has been around for a very long time. will likely be the telling factor.

General Observations The geocentric/heliocentric debate refers to a controversy Science can be a contentious business when data can be starting some 500 years ago between two conflicting views plausibly interpreted more than one way. One of the best of nature. The geocentric position held that the sun, stars, ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific comand planets revolved around the earth. In contrast, the munity is to challenge a widely held scientific understandheliocentric position held that the earth and planets revolved ing with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of around the sun. Several passages of Scripture appeared to considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geolsupport the geocentric view, and heliocentrism was considogists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that ered by many to be a direct challenge to the authority of the question of the earth’s age has been answered: roughly God’s Word. Others recognized more than one possible 4.6 billion years.

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a youngearth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.

But Isn’t an Old Earth Based Entirely on Assumptions of Naturalism?

There is some confusion over the term naturalism because it is variably used as an approach to day-to-day research and as a philosophical worldview. As a philosophical position, it is better termed materialism, which holds that all that is real is observable or testable using natural tools. Supernatural phenomena and beings unconstrained by time and space— such as angels, demons, or God himself—are deemed impossible by simple definition. Ironically, materialism lacks the tools to test its own postulates and is devoid of real merit. It is nonetheless the mantra of many atheistic scientists who have latched onto evolution and deep time as ways of getting around God. This has led to an unfortunate misrepresentation of the age of the earth debate among Christians.

The debate over the age of the earth is frequently characterized as science versus religion or as naturalism/materialism versus theism/Christianity, but these are utterly false dichotomies. In Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Davis Young notes that many of the early advocates of an ancient earth were devout Christians. Among geologists such as Deluc, Buckland, Sedgwick, Conybeare, Fleming, Hitchcock, Guyot, Dana, Winchell, Dawson, and Walcott, several were Calvinists. These men did not regard the scientific evidence as challenging the veracity of Scripture, but only as challenging one aspect of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. The central message of God’s authorship of creation was and remains undisputed by evidence of great age. It was not a commitment to naturalism that convinced Christian geologists of the antiquity of the earth, but rather a belief that the history of nature recorded in the earth’s rocks should be consistent with the unchanging, truthful nature of its Author. In their estimation, the rock record in outcrop after outcrop in all parts of the world clearly told a story extending far beyond a few thousand years.

This sentiment underlies the current position taken by most Christian geologists today. The Creation Study quote at the start of this article implied that a roughly equal number of Reformed scientists could be found on either side of the age of the earth controversy. This perception is understandable given the high-profile nature of young-earth organizations, but it is not what we have encountered in our experience working among Christian geologists. Of those who claim belief in an inspired, inerrant Bible, an overwhelming majority fall within the “old earth” camp. In fact, we are not aware of a single practicing geologist who was convinced of a young earth by studying God’s physical creation. Though an exception may well be out there somewhere, the few young-earth geologists we have seen in print or have spoken to privately arrived at their position solely on an assumption of how Scripture should be interpreted, not on a study of God’s creation.

Evidence for the Earth’s Antiquity When selecting examples to convey the strength of the evidence for the earth’s antiquity, we faced two challenges.

One was selecting examples that can be easily explained in just a few paragraphs to those unfamiliar with geology. The more difficult challenge, however, was selecting a mere two out of the literally thousands of good candidates from every corner of the globe.

Lake Suigetsu, Japan: Rocks and Sediments Aren’t Just Old, They Have a History In many places around the world, rocks and sediments preserve evidence not only of their age but also of the processes that produced them and the order in which events took place. Consider Lake Suigetsu in Japan, starting with the loose sediments that have been slowly accumulating at the bottom. The bulk of these bottom sediments consist of darkly colored silt and clay particles that settle out after being washed into the lake by streams. In the spring, singlecelled organisms called diatoms living in the water increase in number. As they die off, their microscopic shells settle to the bottom to produce a whitish layer that gets covered during the following season by more silt and clay. Each pair of light and dark layers, collectively referred to as a varve, represents the passage of one year. Lake Suigetsu contains more than 100,000 of these varves, which strongly suggests the lake has been collecting sediment in excess of 100,000 years.

Geology beneath Lake Suigetsu, Japan

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 7

The Atlantic Ocean: Plate Velocity Confirms Measured Ages of Rocks The details of how radioactive dates are determined are irrelevant for this example. It will be sufficient to make a general observation about their application and proceed with an example of how the dates can be independently verified.

The utility, if not the absolute accuracy, of radioactive dating methods is evident from the sheer number of analyses performed every year, with the vast majority yielding ages consistent with independent observations of layering, cross-cutting, or presence of unique fossils. Since the discovery of radioactivity, literally hundreds of thousands of samples have been analyzed from all over the world. If the various radioactive methods yield random or inconsistent dates as often claimed, few researchers (including some of us) would waste valuable resources on these measurements.

A simple method for checking the accuracy of radioactive dating methods makes use of our knowledge of plate tectonics: the movement of plates making up the earth’s crust.

If we consult a map of the Atlantic Ocean floor, a ridge— aptly named the Mid-Atlantic Ridge—is readily visible exactly dividing North and South America from Europe and Africa.

Lava observed welling up along the ridge attests to modern day separation of the continents and expansion of the ocean floor. Seafloor ages determined using radioactive methods are consistent with this observation; the farther one moves away from the ridge, the older the seafloor. Maximum ages of about 180 million years are obtained at the edge of the continents. Intermediate ages determined for seafloor samples between the ridge and continents suggest that the 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Copyright by Marie Tharp 1977/2003. Reproduced by permission of Marie Tharp Maps, LLC, 8 Edward Street, Sparkill, New York 10976.

And there is still more to this story. Those 100,000-plus layers lie on top of bedrock that has its own history. The solid rock beneath and around the lake sediments is a complex assortment of granites that formed from intruded magma (melted rock) and tilted sandstones, mudstones, limestones, and cherts that formed from accumulating sediments in an ocean environment. The abbreviated history all this reflects starts with deposition in a shallow ocean environment, followed by multiple changes in sea level, cementation of grains to harden sands and mud into rock, intrusion of magma, tilting and uplift above sea level, erosion of these rocks to present level, and finally formation of the lake where sediments and diatoms began to accumulate on the bottom.

No single event can be called upon to plausibly produce all these observed changes. Each feature and rock unit records a unique aspect of earth history. Dating techniques applied to these rock units yield the same sequence of ages inferred from logically sorting out the order of events from visual observations. The fact that the order of ages follows the logical sequence of events that must have taken place lends credence to the absolute values, but again, we do not have to depend on untestable assumptions to accept that ages in the millions of years are credible. This leads us to Example 2.

Mid-Atlantic Ridge (World Ocean Floor Panorama by Bruce C. Heezen and Marie Tharp, 1977)

rate of spreading has been relatively constant at about 2.5 cm per year since the continents first started splitting 180 million years ago.

Now for the test. Satellite stations on different continents allow precise distances to be measured down to the centimeter scale. Long-term measurements of the relative position of North America and North Africa document a steady current spreading rate of 2.5 cm per year—the same value calculated using positions and radioactively determined ages of ocean crust.

From these examples, there are only two possible conclusions: either the earth is very old or God intentionally made the earth to appear old. At first glance, apparent age may not raise a red flag, but it should not take much thought to recognize a serious theological problem. Ocean spreading rates and radioactive decay rates are entirely unrelated. If the earth is truly young, it means that God started rapid plate movement and rapid radioactive decay and diminished these independent rates precisely so that today the observed rate of spreading would only appear to confirm the accuracy of radioactive dating methods. From the previous example, the 14C (carbon14) decay rate is unrelated to the number of tree rings or sediment layers formed in a year, meaning God started creation with a higher 14C decay rate, and a dozen or more tree rings and varves formed each year, and then he diminished each independent process in such a way to only appear to confirm that one varve and one tree ring typically forms each year.

In other words, God designed the earth intentionally to mislead all those who are unwilling to ignore the obvious history his natural creation reflects. Reformed believers

should be quick to reject this possibility on the grounds that it denies the truth of Romans 1:20, where Paul assures us that God’s character is evident in the universe he created.

Apparent age makes God a deceiver.

Young-earth advocates counter that Creation had to have the appearance of age, without deception, because Adam, mature forests, and even flowing rivers would all of necessity have the appearance of age. This confuses maturity with history. A miraculously created tree might well appear mature, but apparent age arguments suggest that if Adam cut down several of these trees, he may have found 50 growth rings with matching patterns of variable growth and burn marks at rings 21 and 43. These data represent not just maturity or age but history—a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth’s layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.

Does My Belief Regarding the Age of the Earth Make Any Practical Difference?

If the PCA recognizes that mature believers fall on either side of the age of the earth debate, does it ultimately make a difference which side you fall on? We suggest it does matter for two important reasons.

The first is a greater appreciation of God’s handiwork. If creation conforms to God’s trustworthiness and looks old because it is old, we are free to marvel at each new discovery that further reveals the incredible complexity and grandeur of his creativity. If the earth is old and we insist it is young, every new discovery can be met only with distrust and disdain—disdain of his creation!

The second reason is of perhaps greater importance. If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth’s antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!

Gregg Davidson (Ph.D.) is associate professor of geology and geological engineering at the University of Mississippi and attends Christ Presbyterian Church in Oxford, Mississippi.

Keith Long (Ph.D.) is a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and attends Desert Springs Presbyterian Church in Tucson (Oro Valley), Arizona.

Richard F. Mercer (B.A.) is a retired petroleum geologist and attends Woodgreen Presbyterian Church in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Kent Ratajeski (Ph.D.) is assistant professor of geology at the University of West Georgia and attends Christ Church Presbyterian in Atlanta, Georgia.

Davis A. Young (Ph.D.) is professor emeritus of geology at Calvin College and attends Catalina Foothills Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona.

Speaking Of…

“W

e believe that the Scriptures, and hence

Genesis 1–3, are the inerrant word of God.

We affirm that Genesis 1–3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word

David Campbell (Ph.D.) is research associate in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alabama and attends Trinity Presbyterian Church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Lyle D. Campbell (Ph.D.) is professor of Geology at the University of South Carolina Upstate and attends Providence Presbyterian Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Chip Cates (M.S., P.G.) is an engineering geologist and attends Trinity Presbyterian Church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research.”

—PCA Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly (June 21, 2000) CPCA Historical Center, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 9

C A N O N F O R M AT I O N

Sufficient for Faith and Practice: Covenant and Canon

I

t is increasingly common even in evangelical circles today to hear traditional Roman Catholic arguments for the Bible as “the church’s book” and the church as “the mother of Scripture,” as if the community created its own constitution. We are engaging sola Scriptura in a variety of ways in this issue, but this article focuses on the relationship between covenant and canon.

God’s Ruling Constitution: The Word as Canon he ancient church identified the Bible as the church’s canon, from the Greek word for “rule” (kanön). An analogy may be drawn from U.S. history. The War of Independence secured the liberty of the colonies from British rule in 1776; however, the Constitution was adopted eleven years later. The colonists were liberated from the British crown, but organized themselves as a republic through a written constitution.

T

BY 10 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

MICHAEL HORTON

S U F F I C I E N T

Similarly, in creation and redemption the triune God first acted in deliverance and judgment and then organized reality around his Word. In creation, God spoke the world into being out of nothing and then addressed Adam with his covenant. In this original covenant, God’s Word consisted of a preamble identifying the covenant Lord, a historical prologue (the creation narrative justifying his sovereignty), stipulations (commands), and sanctions (blessing for obedience, curse for disobedience). The covenant of grace also exhibits these formal features, as we will see.

Of course, the analogy between Scripture and modern constitutions breaks down. God’s kingdom is not a democracy but a monarchy. The people did not liberate themselves from Satan, death, and hell; God did. Therefore, the author of the covenant constitution is not “we the people” (or “we the church”), but God the Savior and Lord. Our Good Shepherd does not liberate his people only to leave them as vagrant sheep, prey for roaming wolves.

The real parallel between the Bible’s covenants is with Ancient Near Eastern (especially Hittite) treaties.1 The greater ruler (suzerain) would unilaterally impose conditions on the lesser ruler (vassal), and the treaty was deposited in the respective shrines of each capital.

Typically, these international treaties included the elements already mentioned: a preamble identifying the suzerain (or great king) and a historical prologue, followed by stipulations and sanctions. The suzerain’s act of liberation was the basis for his imperial rights, and he therefore annexed them to his kingdom by giving them a written constitution. The great king acted in liberating the captive people and then ruled them by his treaty. With a copy in the archives of both the lesser and greater ruler, the treaty would be read regularly to the people, reminding them of their obligations.

The constitution of the creation-covenant does not open with “In the beginning the people created a republic,” but “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The subsequent narrative justifies his rights over creation, rights that are clearly exercised in the commands and the promise (life) and threat (death).

Interpreted especially in the light of Romans 2, the canon of this original covenant is engraved on the conscience of every human being to this day—the canon of natural law.

A similar pattern is evident in the covenant at Sinai, with the historical books providing the dramatic prologue justifying Yahweh’s suzerainty, stipulations (commands), and sanctions (threats for transgression). A condensed version appears in the Decalogue: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. [Therefore] you shall have no other gods before me”—and the other commands follow (Exod.

20:2). The people accept the terms, and Moses warns repeatedly of the promise of blessing in the land for obedience and exile for disobedience. Finally, the tablets were deposited in the Ark of the Covenant.

With the historical books at the beginning and the announcement of the covenant curses in the prophetic

F O R

F A I T H

A N D

P R A C T I C E

books, this covenant and its canon were a temporary and typological economy leading Israel to its Messiah, the Savior of the world. A new exodus requires a new canon, and Exodus is the source of the New Testament’s Gospel genre. In spite of their differences, all of the biblical covenants originate with the triune God. God is the author and the constitution is his reality-organizing charter for the people he has made his own possession.

The New Testament Canon his close connection between canon and covenant is therefore crucial for understanding the way in which the Bible regulates the faith and practice of the people of God. While the whole Bible is canonical in the broader sense—that is, belonging to God’s authoritative Word—the civil and ceremonial laws that constituted and governed the old covenant theocracy are no longer canonical in the narrower sense—that is, they are no longer in force; they are “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13).

Similarly, Paul points out in Galatians 3:15–29 that the later Sinai covenant cannot annul the earlier Abrahamic covenant. On one hand, we see a continuity of the moral law and the gospel promise from Genesis to Revelation.

Even the Sinai (or Mosaic) covenant proclaims the gospel through its types and shadows. Over and against a dispensationalist paradigm, therefore, we recognize that there is one covenant of grace—one church—in both testaments, and they are given everlasting rest by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. However, on the other hand, over and against the Judaizers who had collapsed the Abrahamic covenant into the Mosaic covenant, Paul argues that these “are two covenants” and they are entirely distinct—even mutually exclusive—in their basis and goals (Gal. 4:21–31). One cannot simply add Jesus to the old covenant or vice versa. The Mosaic covenant is restricted to the nation of Israel and promises temporal blessings and curses (long life in the land versus death and exile) based on the personal obedience of the people. The Abrahamic covenant promises worldwide and everlasting blessing through faith in Christ who fulfilled the law, bore its curse, and rose victoriously for his beneficiaries.

This is why the writer to the Hebrews issues the solemn warning to visible members of the new covenant community not to turn away from Christ and go back to the shadows of the law (that is, the Sinai covenant). If they do so, they will be cut off not only from the temporal land but from everlasting life in the new creation. The promises are greater, and so are the curses (see especially chapters 2–6).

Although the specific promises, warnings, and commands of the Sinai covenant are no longer in effect (canonical in the narrow sense), the Old Testament remains part of Christian Scripture (canonical in the wider sense). The new covenant is constituted by its own canon: the New Testament. This canon has its own historical prologue—the Gospels—which even begin by evoking parallels with Genesis (John’s prologue) and the history of Israel (the prologues of the synoptic Gospels). It has its

T

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 1 1

own stipulations (both doctrines and commands) and sanctions (life and death). From Mount Sinai, Moses mediated God’s law, but in person the Suzerain who prescribed the laws governing the typological theocracy now declares in his own Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘…’ But I say, ‘…’” (Matt. 5:21– 48). Jesus does not set aside the law but fulfills it (Matt.

5:17–20). Christ’s death inaugurates the new covenant as a royal grant—that is, a last will and testament that dispenses an inheritance based on his perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience rather than our own (Matt. 26:26–30; Gal. 3:10–29; 4:21–28; Heb. 8:1–13; 9:15–28).

The Epistles provide the apostolic interpretation of the new covenant, both its doctrines and its practices. These letters make much of the point that the Sinai covenant was delivered through a merely human mediator, was temporary, and could not bring everlasting life, while the covenant of grace has God incarnate for its mediator, is eternal, and brings justification of the ungodly (Gal. 3:19– 20; Heb. 3:1–6). Unlike the covenant that Israel swore at Sinai, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Exod.

19:8), this covenant of grace rests on God’s oath and is therefore stable and unchanging (Heb. 6:13–20; 8:1– 10:18). And like the old covenant’s prophetic writings, the New Testament concludes with the ultimate covenant lawsuit in the book of Revelation.

There can be no covenant without a canon or a canon without a covenant. In fact, the covenant is the canon and vice versa. Furthermore, like the Ancient Near Eastern treaties, the old and new covenant canons include among their sanctions a death sentence for anyone who attempts even the slightest emendation (Exod. 25:16, 21; 40:20; Deut. 4:2; 10:2; 31:9– 13; cf. Deut. 27; Josh. 8:30–35; Rev. 22:18). The United States Constitution cannot be amended by the executive or judicial branches but only by the legislative, since this branch represents the people, who are its authors. God, however, is the Suzerain (or Great King) of his church, and he alone has the authority to determine its content.

The canon is no more the creation of the church than a nation’s constitution is the creation of its courts. The covenant Lord creates a people out of nothing by his speech and shapes, regulates, and defines the covenantal life of that people by his canon.

For these reasons, the churches of the Reformation have always argued that the church is creatura verbi, a creation of the Word. Through the proclamation of the gospel, the triune God speaks life out of death, justification out of condemnation, holiness out of unrighteousness. And this gospel is canonical. Anyone who adds to it, takes away from it, or preaches another gospel, falls under the divine anathema, even if that person is an angel or an apostle (Gal. 1:8–9). With the completion of the apostolic ministry, all of the promises and commands of the new covenant form the written constitution of the covenant of grace.

The God who saves by his Word also rules by his Word.

Peter speaks of the Word of God in both of these senses, as sacramental (means of grace) and as regulative (canon).

12 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

In the first sense, he refers to creation as having come into being “by the word of God” and adds, “But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet. 3:5, 7). Yet the prophetic Scriptures are also the deposit of revelation and are no less the product of divine speech (2 Pet. 1:20–21). We are “born again…through the living and abiding word of God” which is “the good news that was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:23, 25), in order to be saved and ruled by Christ. “For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25).

Christ saves us in order to rule us and rules us in order to save us. It is through his Word and Spirit that Christ accomplishes both. His Word is both the rod that parts the waters of death so that we may pass through safely and the scepter or staff by which he keeps us under his care until we reach the other side. Because it is the Word of the Father, in the Son, through the powerful agency of the Spirit, God’s utterance through human ambassadors will always create the world of which it speaks, both judgment and salvation (Isa. 55:10–11).

If the covenant is inseparable from its canon (constitution), then what about the community? God created the heavens and the earth. Therefore, he determined the terms of his relationship with humanity. Not only creation but “salvation is of the Lord” (Jon. 2:9). We do not make Jesus our Lord and Savior; we are his people because he is Lord and Savior. It is God’s action, not ours, that brings salvation. United to Christ by the proclamation of the gospel, the church exists in every moment only as it hears this Word, stands under it, and refuses to allow anything else to become canonically binding. Through this Word, Christ not only creates a redeemed communion but governs it as Prophet, Priest, and King. The church is the recipient of God’s saving revelation, never a source.

Sola Scriptura: The Reformation Debate ome has always had a high doctrine of Scripture as inspired and even inerrant. However, the controversy at the Reformation turned on the relationship of tradition and Scripture. Again we see that sola Scriptura can be rejected by addition (raising the church’s authority to the level of Scripture) as easily as by subtraction (lowering Scripture to public opinion). As with the other points, the Reformation stubbornly clung to that Latin qualifier: sola (alone). Just as we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, we are bound to Scripture alone as our source for doctrine and life. And just as Rome adds our merits to Christ’s gift, it adds its words to Scripture. In fact, it makes Scripture itself subordinate to the church.

The Latin slogan means “by Scripture alone,” not “Scripture alone” (solo Scriptura).2 For example, both Lutheran and Reformed churches regard the ecumenical creeds, along with their own confessions and catechisms, as authoritative and binding summaries of Scripture, to

R

S U F F I C I E N T

which they are all subordinate. We accept these statements because they summarize biblical teaching, not on the basis of the church’s authority. The key difference is that whereas the Roman Catholic view treats the church’s authority as magisterial (sovereign), churches of the Reformation view it as ministerial (subordinate to Christ’s scriptural Word).

F O R

F A I T H

A N D

P R A C T I C E

have tried to revive the view held by some medieval thinkers that Scripture is uniquely normative, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) replies that since there are many extrascriptural dogmas that such theologians must hold, “What sense is there in talking about the sufficiency of scripture?”7 He adds, “Scripture is not revelation but at most only a part of the latter’s greater reality.”8

THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH Reformation Protestantism

Roman Catholicism

Salvation Christ alone by grace alone

Revelation Scripture alone

Authority of the Church Ministerial (i.e., the church is subordinate to and serves the Word)

Covenant and Community The Word creates the church

Do We Add to Revelation?

No, the canon of Scripture is closed

Canon Formation The church recognizes the canon retroactively

Grace + good works

Scripture + tradition

Magisterial (i.e., the church is sovereign and rules over the Word)

The church creates the Word

Yes, when the pope speaks (infallibly) as the heir of Peter the Apostle

The church establishes the canon progressively

Although there were medieval theologians of stature such as Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly who insisted upon sola Scriptura, the Council of Trent (1545–63) condemned this view and does so to this day. Since the church preceded the canon and the latter evolved within and was finally authorized as such by the church, the conclusion seemed self-evident to Roman Catholic theologians that the church was the mother of Scripture. Furthermore, Scripture has to be interpreted. Would the Spirit inspire the canon without also inspiring its living interpreter, the church?

The Council of Trent established the view that Scripture and tradition are actually two forms of God’s Word: “written” and “unwritten.” Many unwritten (that is, oral) traditions were passed around by the apostles and their circle and passed down by them to successive generations.

Crucial to this development was the assumption that the apostolic office is still in effect, with the pope and magisterium as successors to Peter and the other apostles.3 However, it was not until the First Vatican Council (1870) that papal infallibility became a binding dogma for Roman Catholics.4 According to this teaching, the pope, when speaking as Peter’s successor (ex cathedra means “from the chair”), is preserved from error and may promulgate doctrines that are necessary to be believed for salvation.

Though more nuanced, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) repeated the dogma that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two rivers that flow into the one reservoir we call the Word of God. Jesus gave his apostles his authority and they, in turn, gave their successors this authority. In the magisterium, with the primacy of the pope, the apostolic office is living in the world today.5 “Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the church.”6 While some Roman Catholic theologians (especially Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Yves Congar, and George Tavard)

Consequently, Rome virtually erases any distinction between inspiration (pertaining exclusively to the biblical texts) and illumination (pertaining to the church’s interpretation), the extraordinary foundation-laying ministry of the apostles and the ordinary building-erecting ministry of the post-apostolic church. To return to the analogy above, this is like the Supreme Court revising, amending, and adding to the Constitution instead of merely interpreting it.

Just as the New Testament supplements the Old Testament, Pope Benedict argues, the church’s ongoing interpretation supplements both.9 Calvin pointed out that the radical Protestant sects were similar to Rome in this respect: both held that the apostolic office remains in effect.10 The Reformers and their heirs agreed that the church has an essential role in maintaining the truth, but is not the author or source. There is a divinely instituted teaching office, but it obtains its fallible authority from the infallible Word. Of course, God’s Word was at first delivered by oral tradition and was only later committed to writing. None of these Reformation theologians held that the Bible as we now have it preceded the church!

However, the Reformers argued that the Word of God preceded both Scripture and the church. As proclamation, the Word created the church, and now we have a written deposit of this normative as well as saving truth. So there was a time when sacred tradition and written Scripture were two media of one revealed deposit, but this situation no longer obtains in the post-apostolic era. The critical question for us is whether the non-inspired traditions of ordinary ministers of the church can be equated with the revelation given through the extraordinary ministry of prophets and apostles.

Jesus excoriated the religious leaders for raising “the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8) to the level of God’s Word.

“So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God” (Matt. 15:6). On the other hand, Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 1 3

charges of the “super-apostles,” who led many Corinthians astray by their claim to extraordinary in its faith and life by the Word that created and revelation that circumvented the apostolic circle. It is interesting preserves it, and it must always be ready to be that while Rome increasingly answered the heretics by appealreformed by it. ing to its own authority (an ongoing apostolic authority), traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoPaul himself, though indisputably an apostle, draws the ken word or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). A chapter later Corinthians’ attention to that which had been already comhe warns them to keep away from those who are not mitted to writing even while the apostles were living. walking “with the tradition that you received from us” (2 There one could not go wrong. That Peter even refers to Thess. 3:6). In spite of their strife and immaturity, Paul Paul’s Epistles as “Scripture” underscores just how early commends the Corinthians “because you remember me in the apostles were talking about official pastoral letters as everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered canonical (2 Pet. 3:16). them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). Are Jesus and Paul at odds There is a marked difference after the death of the here? Not at all. Jesus is referring to the traditions of nonapostles. The early fathers did not appeal to their own inspired Jewish leaders, who had raised their ministerial authority (or that of the church corporately), but to the interpretations to the level of magisterial authority. Paul is words of the apostles. Rome argues that the Bible itself is referring to the inspired teaching of the apostles, whose unclear even on crucial matters of salvation and worship, ministry has expired. All of the inspired traditions that God and therefore an infallible teaching office is necessary. deemed necessary and sufficient for the church in all times and The Scriptures, however, are clear on these matters, and places are included in the Scriptures. the history especially of the medieval church is filled with Judicial decisions and the history of case precedent canconsiderable confusion, contradiction, and even mutual not be equated with the constitution itself. The new excommunications by popes and councils. covenant had been inaugurated and now, by Christ’s Most obviously, the fatal anathema of the gospel’s clear appointment, was receiving its constitution. While all aposteaching by the Roman Catholic Church vitiates its claim tolic pronouncements concerning faith and practice were to to a faithful ministerial office, much less magisterial. This be received as God’s Word (“either by our spoken word or is a sad but necessary observation, given the correlation by letter”), the Spirit saw fit to commit the most necessary that Paul has made between the gospel as canon even over oral and written teaching to the New Testament Scriptures. angels and apostles (Gal. 1:8–9). Prior to becoming pope, Analogous to post-prophetic traditions, then, post-aposCardinal Ratzinger nicely summarizes the difference tolic traditions have ministerial but not magisterial authorbetween Rome and the Reformation churches on this ity. The court is not the author of its own constitution. point. According to the latter, the Word guarantees the Since there are no more apostles, there is no ongoing ministry whereas Rome holds that the ministry guarantees revelation. This is the argument the Reformers made the Word. He adds, “Perhaps in this reversal of the relaagainst both Rome and the radical Protestants. The tions between word and ministry lies the real opposition Scriptures are sufficient. Christ is the head who saves and between the views of the church held by Catholics and rules his body. Therefore, the church is always put into Reformers.”11 question in its faith and life by the Word that created and Eroding the sufficiency of the biblical canon happens in Protestant ways as well, on the left and the right. preserves it, and it must always be ready to be reformed Everything turns on whether we believe that salvation by it. Paul said that he had “laid a foundation, and somecomes from the Lord or from ourselves—either as indione else is building upon it” (1 Cor. 3:10). That is the viduals or as a community. ■ order: apostolic foundation followed by the ordinary ministry of the church on that basis. “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Michael Horton is J. Gresham Machen Professor of Theology and Christ” (v. 11, emphasis added). There is the foundationApologetics at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido). laying period and then the building phase.

If Paul could warn the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6), then surely those of us living in post-apostolic times are no less obliged to this prin1Among many others, the following should be mentioned: ciple. Especially as the church was already beginning to be G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near racked with internal division and errors, Paul in effect East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955); Delbert Hillers, invokes the principle of sola Scriptura in forbidding the Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins saints from going beyond the written texts. Paul urges this University Press, 1969); M. G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Auin the context of his defense of his ministry from the

Therefore, the church is always put into question

14 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

S U F F I C I E N T

F O R

F A I T H

A N D

P R A C T I C E

thority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), esp. ch. 3.

2A fruitful study of the Reformation’s interpretation of this phrase is found in Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2001).

3Although episcopal (governed by bishops), the East was always suspicious of the hierarchicalism of the West and the former emphasized that the whole body of Christ is infused with the charism of the apostles—not that they are apostles themselves, but they are filled with the Spirit and led by the Spirit.

According to the West, the idea gradually emerged that this charism was reserved for the priesthood and especially for those who were part of the magisterium (cardinals and popes).

4For a fuller treatment of this development, see Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1988).

5Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and

Postconciliar Documents (Northport, NY: Costello, 1975), 754–63.

6Flannery, 755. Emphasis added.

7Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, Revelation & Tradition, trans. W. J. O’Hara (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 29.

8Rahner and Ratzinger, 36–37.

9Rahner and Ratzinger, 44.

10In fact, Calvin wrote, “We are assailed by two sects,” referring to Rome and the Anabaptists, even though they “seem to differ most widely from each other.” “For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods.” Calvin’s “Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto’s Letter,” in Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 1:36.

11Rahner and Ratzinger, 29.

The Bible As We Know It

the letters of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John was debated in the early church before these books were recognized as belonging to the canon.

Both of these points underscore the fact that the church was recognizing, not creating, the canon. These leaders of the ancient church were engaged in historical criticism— determining which books were canonical, not endowing them with canonical authority. Athanasius, for example, rejected the Shepherd of Hermas because, although it was widely used, it did not have adequate evidence of apostolic origin and did not bear the marks of belonging to the circle of the apostles themselves. As Emil Brunner notes, this process was far from an arbitrary exercise of ecclesiastical power: “If we compare the writings of the New Testament with those of the subapostolic period [e.g., Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas], even those which are nearest in point of time, we cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a very great difference between the two groups; which was also the opinion of the fathers of the church.”4

By Michael Horton This sovereignty of Scripture over the church may be defended not only from the New Testament but secondarily from the actual process by which the post-apostolic church arrived at the canon. Our twenty-seven books in the New Testament canon were first codified in an official list at the councils of Carthage (393) and Hippo (397).1 Two important facts, however, need to be considered.

First, most of these texts were already widely recognized and employed regularly in public worship as divinely inspired. In fact, this was one criterion that was used for determining which texts were canonical. As we have seen, Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture. Tertullian was already quoting from twenty-three of these twentyseven books by the late second and early third centuries.

The wide use of these books (as well as the Old Testament) by the ancient Christian writers to judge all views and controversies testifies to the fact that they were already functioning as Scripture long before they were officially listed in a canon. In 367, Athanasius drew up the first list of all twenty-seven books, even identifying it as a canon, and maintained that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us.”2 Second, from these ancient Christian writers we can identify four main categories in which texts were to be placed: canonical, widely accepted, spurious, and heretical.3 There were criteria employed for determining canonical books, all of which had to do with the nature of the texts rather than with the authority of the church. These criteria included well-attested apostolic authorship or certification, wide acceptance and use of Scripture already in church practice, and consistency of content—or what became known in Reformation teaching as the “analogy of Scripture” (interpreting passages in the light of other passages, comparing the parts in the light of the whole, and vice versa). Though widely accepted, the canonicity of

Bruce Metzer, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965); D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992); Lee McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007); C. Craig Evans and Emanuel Tov, eds., Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).

2Athanasius, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 4:23.

3See “The Church History of Eusebius,” Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 1:155–57.

4Emil Brunner, Reason and Revelation, trans. Olive Wyon (London: SCM Press, 1947), 132.

1

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 1 5

Canon and Catholicism Why We Don’t Have the Apocrypha in Our Bibles

O

ver the years, there have been numerous attempts to bring Roman Catholics and Protestants together under the mutual banner of Christianity. In 1970, a book was published titled Growing into Union: Proposals for Forming a United Church in England, which sought to unite Anglican evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. In 1994, another attempt was made to bring Roman Catholics and Protestants together by publishing a 25-page document titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: the Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. Despite these attempts, however, we remain separated due to several fundamental differences. Our views on justification, church government, the priesthood, and even our Bibles are different. And it would seem that before we can move on to our great theological differences, we could at least start with our Bibles.

The Roman Catholic Bible contains several additions, called the Apocrypha, which our Bibles do not contain. So as we consider this, the question must be asked: Why don’t we have the Apocrypha in our Bibles?

Since many of us have never set foot inside a Roman Catholic Church, let alone opened a Roman Catholic Bible, let’s take the time to examine the Apocrypha briefly. “The word apocrypha, used in a variety of ways over time, generally refers to the collection of religious writings that are found in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate but not in the Hebrew Bible or most Protestant canons.”1 Typically, the apocryphal books include a series of fourteen or fifteen additional Old Testament books.2 Like our Protestant Bibles, these apocryphal books were written by a variety of authors over an extended period of time. The book of Tobit, for example, was written c. 180 B.C. In these short fourteen chapters, Tobit is depicted as a man who is faithful in his religion toward God (Tob. 1:12) and conducts many charitable deeds (Tob. 1:3). This, however, does not make him immune to disaster. Tobit later becomes blind and suffers some loss, but we are told that all eventually is well. Tobit prays to God, who sends an angel to deliver him from his sufferings and his sight is eventually restored.

The book of Tobit—as well as the other apocryphal books—contains similar stories, namely, that of suffering and deliverance. We should also note that the book titled “The Wisdom of Solomon” is much like our book of Proverbs. Despite all the similarities, there are several things in which we must take note. Many of the apocryphal books, for example, were written between the second and first century B.C. Does that alarm you? If not, or even if it does, consider the words of the prophet Malachi: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children 16 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction. (Mal. 4:5–6, ESV) These were his closing words, as we know it, in the final book of the Old Testament in our English Bibles. Then what happened? The next thing we read concerns a man who was baptizing in the wilderness named John the Baptist (Mark 1:1–5). So the question we should consider is, What happened between the time of Malachi’s final utterances and the entrance of John the Baptist in the wilderness? Edward Unmack notes, [T]he Jewish legend that the tongue of prophecy was silent after the days of Malachi, and that thenceforth revelation was no longer vouchsafed to the people of Israel, practically represents the results of comparison between the Books of the Hebrew Canon and the Books of the Apocrypha.3 If, in fact, the Israelites did not receive further prophecy from God between the time of Malachi’s ministry and John the Baptist’s entrance in the wilderness, how were these apocryphal books given by inspiration of God to prophetically proclaim his word to the Jewish people? In short, they were not.

This, however, is not the only problem. There are several inaccuracies in the apocryphal books. In 1 Maccabees 4:26–35, Lysias—the king’s regent and cousin, who was also in charge of the government—went to battle against the Jews. This battle took place before the death of Timothy, the captain of the Ammonite army. In 2 Maccabees 10:37–11:12, however, Lysias’s defeat came after the death of Timothy. Further inaccuracies are displayed in the chronology and geography of certain apocryphal books, not to mention theological mistakes. Sirach 3:3 says, “Whoever honors his father atones for sins” (RSV). Later in this book, we are told, “For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and against your sins it will be credited to you; in the day of your affliction it will be remembered in your favor; as frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away” (Sir. 3:14–15, RSV 1957 edition).

Truly, the only way in which anyone can have his sins atoned is through the precious blood of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, even in the Old Testament era.

Is this enough, however, to reject these books in the Protestant canon? Surely it is, but these are not the only reasons. In or around A.D. 400, Jerome strongly maintained that the apocryphal books should not be included in the canon. Other scholars in the first century, such as Josephus and Philo, also rejected these books; and we

must not forget Origen, who believed these books had no place being accepted as inspired Scripture.4 Fast-forward over one thousand years and we are introduced to the Reformation. What did they believe? After all, it was during the Reformation that other versions of the Bible were introduced, including the Apocrypha. Paul Wegner notes, “The Reformers aligned themselves with the canon identified by Jerome and others following him, but the Roman Catholic Church argued for the broader view of the canon, especially as they included teaching on prayers for the dead and purgatory (2 Macc. 12:40–45).”5 Thus, although the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church continued to utilize it; and to make it official, during the Council of Trent in 1546, Roman Catholics subscribed to the Apocrypha, as well as the Jewish Scriptures, as authoritative. This debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church lasted some time and still exists today.

But we must also take note that it is not enough only to ask the Catholics why they have the Apocrypha in their Bibles; we must also ask ourselves why it was in the earlier translations of our Bibles. For instance, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the Authorized Version of 1611 all contained the Apocrypha. We cannot help but ask: Didn’t they know about all the inaccuracies? Didn’t they know about Origen, Jerome, Philo, and Josephus?

The quick and simple answer is yes, which is why, for instance, the Geneva Bible of 1560 had a section pertaining to the Apocrypha that stated that these books “were not to be read and expounded publicly in the church.”

Nevertheless, the long and drawn-out answer concerning the addition of the apocryphal books in our Bibles is much more complicated. This is why, as we observe church history, we should notice the extreme and lasting struggle Protestants endured in order to remove the uninspired apocryphal books from the Bible. In 1615, for example, “the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, a firm Calvinist in theology, forbade the binding or selling of Bibles without the Apocrypha on penalty of a year’s imprisonment.”6 Despite this penalty, Bibles began to be produced without the apocryphal books, and in 1644, the Long Parliament suggested that the Apocrypha should not be read in worship services.7 A short time later, the Westminster Divines assembled to produce the Westminster Confession of Faith, in which the first chapter stated all the books that were to be included in the Protestant canon.

There was not one mention of the apocryphal books. In fact, WCF 1.3 states, “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”

These documents were written some time ago, however, and it may seem far removed from us; consequently, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries may be a time to which many of us cannot relate. Thus these struggles may

only appear as something that happened in time past. But we do not have to look back hundreds of years to observe the confusion that has taken place in regard to whether the Apocrypha should be included in the Bible—this particular struggle is closer than we think. The Apocrypha appeared in the 1957 Revised Standard Version. It also appeared in the 1970 New English Bible, which is merely forty years ago. Yet we must conclude, despite these entries, that the apocryphal books are not the inspired Word of God. These entries can be regarded only as a mere flaw and nothing more. This is why in Luther’s German Bible, these words appear: “The Apocrypha: Books which are not to be held equal to Holy Scripture, but as useful and good to read.”8 We can read the apocryphal books, sometimes even for historical data, but on the whole these additional books are not to be read nor considered on the same level as the inspired pages of Scripture.

In closing, Paul instructed Timothy as follows: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17, ESV). The Scriptures Paul referred to throughout his Epistles to Timothy never included the apocryphal books. Paul never quoted from them, nor did the other apostles or even our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus you can rest assured that as you read your Bibles today—which do not include the Apocrypha—by his sovereign hand, God has given you his very word that will instruct you on all matters pertaining to life and godliness.

Leon Brown (B.A. in Communication Studies, University of San Diego) currently attends Westminster Seminary California and plans to pastor a local congregation. He is a requested conference speaker, experienced evangelist, and itinerant preacher. He is the founder of the Evangelism Team ministry and has published in Christian Renewal magazine.

Paul Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 120–21.

2These books include: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, additions to the book of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

3Edward Unmack, “Why We Reject the Apocrypha,” Evangelical Quarterly 1.4 (1929): 364.

4Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), 92.

5Wegner, 107.

6F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic, 1988), 108.

7Bruce, 109.

8Bruce, 102.

1

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 1 7

C A N O N F O R M AT I O N

Is the Reformation in Italy Over?

An Interview with Reverend Andrea Ferrari

Rev. Ferrari Ordination

Cristina and Andrea Ferrari 18 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

“Did you ever think that it would turn out this way?� Rev. Andrea Ferrari asked me excitedly after his ordination as minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA). No, I definitely could have never foreseen this in 2005, when I started to work for Alfa e Omega, a small publishing house devoted to the production of Reformed material into Italian. A year later, Rev. Ferrari, then editor-in-chief of Alfa e Omega and pastor of Filadelfia Evangelical Church, visited our church and gave a presentation on his publishing ministry.

Since then, he has visited our congregation, Christ United Reformed Church (URC) in Santee, California, spending much time in discussion of pressing matters of ecclesiology and covenant theology with our senior pastor, Rev. Michael Brown, and our associate pastor, Rev. Dr. Michael Horton. In February 2009, realizing that no solid confessional Reformed or Presbyterian denominations existed in Italy, and feeling the need for structure and oversight in his pastoral efforts, Rev. Ferrari asked for our help. On January 24, 2010, he was ordained at Christ URC and called to the missionary task of establishing a federation of Reformed churches in Italy.

The following interview explains his present commitment and vision, as well as the challenges he and other believers face in Italy today.

by Simonetta Carr

I S

We often hear that the Reformation has bypassed Italy. Do you think that’s true?

In Italy there was indeed a Reformation! I would even add that Italy was even more ready for a Reformation than other countries because of the presence of Rome and of the pope. You may think, for example, of the lesser-known movement called conciliarism, which struggled with the pope and the Roman Curia even before the Reformation, especially in the fifteenth century. The bishops forming this movement affirmed that the pope should be under the supervision of the council of bishops. It was a very strong struggle, and we had a Reformation. People were turning to the gospel and books were translated and introduced into Italy through Venice, which had a long history of resistance to the power of Rome. There were also writings by Italians.

For instance, tens of thousands of copies of a famous work

by Benedetto of Mantua, The Benefit of Christ, were distributed all over Italy. For the first few decades, the Reformation took root in Italy, especially among the clergy and nobles who were educated and could afford to buy books.

Things changed with the passing of the years, especially because of the Inquisition and the punishments and imprisonments inflicted on those who professed the Protestant doctrines. After this persecution began, Italian Protestants had three options: death, exile, or return to the Roman Catholic Church. They could not go underground anymore. The repression that had begun in the Middle Ages against the so-called “heretical movements” intensified. As in the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic sacrament of confession became an instrument of social control, allowing religious and civil authorities to exercise censorship. There was a series of rules that allowed the priests to ask specific questions about people and places, and hiding became extremely difficult and dangerous. Many Italian families left Italy at that time: the Turretinis, the Diodatis, and also reformers such as Peter Martyr Vermigli, Paolo Vergerio, and Bernardino Ochino, who are representatives of many other people who were not theologians or teachers. On the other hand, we had some Italians who studied in Geneva and were sent back and were killed— Gioffredo Varaglia, for instance.

The persecution continued for those who refused to leave or recant, such the Waldensians.

The Waldensians were persecuted even before the Reformation, but they were literally slaughtered in Piedmont and Calabria in the seventeenth century.

I believe there was a new rise of Protestantism in the nineteenth century.

The nineteenth century period known as Risorgimento, which brought national unity to Italy, was much favored by Protestants who were seeking a diminishment of the power of Rome. They fought fiercely for the separation between church and state. It was a time of excitement and changes.

That is the time when, in Italy, Plymouth Brethren churches were established and multiplied, under the leadership of

T H E

R E F O R M A T I O N

I N

I T A L Y

O V E R ?

famous exponents such as Count Francesco Guicciardini and Teodorico Pietrocola Rossetti, who were very much involved in the preaching of the gospel as well as in supporting the patriotic wind blowing throughout Italy. There were also the so-called colpoltori, evangelists who had as their objective the distribution of the Bible. They went around with little carts full of Bibles or distributed them in local squares, trying for the first time to introduce the Bible to people in Italy.

There was in fact a chasm between the Reformation and the time of the Risorgimento. In these 250 years, laity could not find Bibles in Italy. At a time when in other European nations the Bible was being spread and translated into the languages of the people, in Italy it was just the opposite. People were kept in a state of ignorance— not taught how to read—just to keep them from the Bible.

For the same purpose, the Jesuits introduced an approach to religious instruction that engages the senses—visual objects and other methods apart from language and words—therefore bypassing the mind. This approach is still very much in use among Roman Catholics, as we recently witnessed through Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ. It was strange to me, as an Italian, to see evangelicals in the English-speaking world so enthusiastic about the movie and inclined to say it was a powerful means to reach lost sinners.

It is important to know that, since the CounterReformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had established a direct link between Protestantism and the Bible.

There was the persuasion that if people could read their Bibles they would turn automatically into Protestants, so that’s why the pope and the Curia forbade the reading of the Bible in Italy, officially until 1758—reading the Bible was forbidden by law. The Bible itself was burned at the stake, and the equation “Scriptures = Heresies” penetrated deeply into the fabric of Italian culture.

It seems that, after such a long period of darkness and lack of scriptural knowledge, evangelicals in Italy today would take advantage of their freedom and make a concerted effort to return to the Scriptures.

It is not so. What I see is a lack of awareness among the majority of evangelicals in Italy of the need to return to the Scriptures. We see in Italy what John MacArthur denounced in his book Ashamed of the Gospel: pragmatism and a man-centered approach to worship. The Word of God is not central in the worship of evangelical churches in Italy. I am not just referring to the fact that the preaching and teaching is very poor. I am thinking also about prayers and hymns. No scriptural hymns are usually sung, just some choruses with pleasant music. You can get thirty to forty minutes of music, some drama, and performance by chorals, drums, electric guitars, and so forth.

Do you think they are influenced by the example of some American churches?

That’s one reason. It is a reflection of American evangelicalism that is manifesting itself in other cultures.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 1 9

because as we read in the Contemplations of Joseph Hall, “when things are at the worst, then God begins a change.” We religious sensitivity. They are still asking face many challenges: secularization, the spread of Islam, the arrogance and pushy themselves the same questions they have attitude of both atheists and evolutionists (last year for the 200th anniversary of been asking themselves for a long time.

Darwin’s birth, some of them went around in buses to spread the “evoluDo you think that Pope Benedict’s current emphasis on tionary gospel”). There is even a new political party in Italy theology has influenced the attitude of Roman Catholics called Democrazia Atea or “Atheist Democracy.” The and even evangelicals toward the importance of scriptural European Parliament issues laws against intelligent design, doctrine? saying it is dangerous in schools for the education of chilI have the impression that committed Roman Catholics in dren because it comes from fundamentalists, both Italy know more of the Bible than many evangelicals. In Christian and Muslim. my personal evangelistic efforts and in those done with the church, we have regular contact with thoughtful Roman What other challenges do you face specifically in Italy?

Catholics. We have discussions about the Bible and comOf course, in Italy we have the omnipresent pope and the pare different perspectives. Evangelicals in general seem Roman Catholic Church, which for us, as Italian more ignorant about the Bible; and the problem is that Protestants, is a challenge. I was really discouraged as an they don’t care, especially if they are part of the evangelical and Reformed pastor when many evangelicals “Generation-Me” (born after the 1970s). What is becomin the United States praised John Paul II, and when evaning more and more important in evangelical ministry in gelical newspapers and magazines that are open to Italy is technology, which is dehumanizing, as C. S. Lewis Reformed theology applauded him as a great man of God anticipated in The Abolition of Man. This technological and Christian statesman. I felt frustrated as our small approach to the Word of God is deteriorating and underReformed congregation tried to be faithful to the message mining the most important traits of the way in which peoof the Bible about law and gospel. I said to myself, “What ple should relate to each other and to God. am I doing here if these prestigious evangelical publications have such great things to say about the pope? Is the Most people associate Europe with secularism. Is this an Reformation over, as Mark Noll suggests in his homonyaccurate description, and what challenges does it present mous book? In that case, let’s all go back to Rome.” But to evangelistic efforts? the Reformation is not over! Even if the true church, as It’s certainly more difficult to speak to people about the the Belgic Confession states, at times “appears very small, Bible in Europe than here in the States, because of secularand in the eyes of men to be reduced to nothing,” it is semization and the influence of the Enlightenment. There is still per reformanda (always reforming). Even if from a human the notion of the autonomy of man and a growing attempt point of view it seems that the true church is extinct, to promote man’s progress solely through man’s ability. The Christ is an eternal king who cannot be without subjects. academy has endeavored to make society secular; and in this, Europe is ahead of the United States. At this time, What type of training is available in Italy to Christians however, we are witnessing a change. Philosophers, sociolwho feel called to the ministry? ogists, and scholars of various disciplines realize that atheEach denomination in Italy has its own training center, ism and other schools of thought such as evolutionism were and in the last fifteen years or so there has been an not able to eradicate from European society the thought of increase of seminars in local churches. When a church God, the sensus divinitatis, the search for spiritual realities. So reaches a certain number of people and begins to have a this might be a profitable time for us in Europe, because if reputation, that church starts a training program. it is true that we live in a post-Christian culture in Europe, it’s also true that we are not in the kind of “brave new What is available to Reformed Christians? world” prophesied by the Enlightenment thinkers. We are There is no Reformed theological seminary in Italy. If a seeing a sort of neo-paganism. Modernity couldn’t purify young man in our church showed evidence of a call to the culture from religion. The suggestion of people such as Jean ministry I would send him to the United States, to Jacques Rousseau to have a state religion embraced by the Westminster Seminary of California. society of human beings has failed completely. People are The Waldensians, who had turned Calvinist at the time still religious. They still have a religious sensitivity. They are of the Reformation, became liberal in the late 1800s, and still asking themselves the same questions they have been later, in many cases, Barthian. There are now many asking themselves for a long time. expressions of feminist theology and liberation theology in The situation in all of Europe, including the United the Waldensian churches. There is also an openness to the Kingdom, is not encouraging; but we should not despair, New Perspective on Paul. In my opinion, this is happen-

People are still religious. They still have a

20 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

I S

ing because the Waldensian church, along with the Methodist church and the Baptist Union, is pushing in Italy for an ecumenical agenda, to find a way to reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church and the New Perspective, which provides a somewhat common ground.

That’s why some important Roman Catholic publishers and Waldensian publishers have printed the major works of E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright.

This brings us to another one of your ministries in Italy: publications.

Yes, another way in which we are trying to recover Scripture in Italy is through the publication of Reformed material. I started, almost in jest, very simply translating a few sermons

by John Owen for use by our local congregation. The first was God Withdrawing His Presence for the Correction of the Church, which we printed in 1995. Since then we have published many other books, first just for devotional reading; but then we wanted to address the needs of ministers, so we began to translate some material for preachers by George Whitefield, Thomas Watson, Jonathan Edwards, Al Martin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and others. After this, we began to think about Christian families, and we published books by authors such as Tedd Tripp—books on family worship, relations between husband and wife and between parents and children, catechizing. Finally, we published theological works by authors with a high view of Scripture: John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Geerhardus Vos, and B. B. Warfield. This is helping people to recover or to understand for the first time the basic principles of Protestantism. In 2009, we distributed more than 7,000 books, which for Italy is not bad.

Your present visit to the United States is particularly important to you. In January 2010, you sustained with impressive performance a colloquium doctum examination administered by Classis Southwest of the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA). How did you decide to become a URCNA minister?

Our congregation, Filadelfia Church, following in a sense my own personal pilgrimage, has been recovering little by little our Reformation heritage, a high view of Scripture, and consequently a high view of the Christian ministry of Word and Sacraments. As I studied John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Chalmers, C. H. Spurgeon, William Carey, Benjamin Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, Herman Bavink, and others, I became progressively more aware of this rich pastoral heritage, of the rich ecclesiological applications of this high view of Scripture and of the ministry of Word and Sacraments, and of the benefits these have for the members of local congregations. As I embraced this heritage, first my wife and children were impacted, and then the church.

One important aspect of the discovery of this Reformation heritage in our own local assembly has been the recovery of a full Reformed ecclesiology, with a threeoffice view of the government of the local church and its

T H E

R E F O R M A T I O N

I N

I T A L Y

O V E R ?

benefits in the application of discipline in the local congregation, so the pastor cannot become a target of sedition within the church. We as a church felt alone. We realized that our confessional documents did not protect us and that there was nobody who could exercise authority over contentious people who were schismatic in doctrine and life.

What steps did you take to help your church to understand this change in direction?

At first, I took two mature men in my congregation through an in-depth study of the Three Forms of Unity and the URCNA Church Order. Later, with the backing of these men, I introduced the congregation to Reformed covenant theology and the Heidelberg Catechism. Each family has now received a copy of the Heidelberg Catechism and URCNA Church Order in Italian.

How many members are in your church?

We have thirty-five members, but usually we have between forty and fifty people attending.

How far is your church from Milan, the largest city in Italy (second largest in population), fifth largest in the European Union?

We are practically on the border of the greater Milan area, about seven miles from Piazza Duomo, the heart of the city.

Statistics on Italy Population of Italy . . . . 60,250,535 (August 2009) Geographical area . . . . . . . . 116,347 square miles Population of Milan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,256,211 Population of Milan’s metropolitan region . . . . . . . . . . . over 7 million Among Italian citizens only (not simple residents): Roman Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,441,290 Protestants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409,000 Among Protestants: Pentecostal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290,000 Historical Protestants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000 Jehovah Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000 Muslims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,000 (over 1,000,000 if we count noncitizens) Buddhists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,000 Number of Roman Catholic parishes . . . . . 25,694 Number of Reformed churches . . . . . . . . . about 5

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 2 1

What is your present vision for yourself and your church?

I came to the conclusion that God is calling me and our church to establish other Reformed churches in Italy, not Reformed just in name—churches where children are catechized, where families practice family worship, where members receive pastoral visitation, where the worship service is according to the Word of God, where the liturgy is not like going to a rock concert, where Word and Sacraments have the central place, where the Sabbath is observed with godliness, where people join together with reverence and awe in God’s presence. To my knowledge, there are presently no churches in Italy that apply and function with a Reformed ecclesiology.

What steps are you planning to take toward this vision?

My approach is that, as Reformed, we should not start with great projects and ideas. Jesus teaches us the principle of being faithful in little things. We should start always from the personal, the local, the specific. Heads of families should catechize their children, pastors should teach their people—even if it is a small church—to live a Scripturecentered or gospel-driven life. As a pastor, I must teach our congregation to have worship that is Word-centered, where God speaks to us and our worship is an answer to his Word. In our church, since the beginning, we have consecutive expositional readings: New Testament in the morning and Old Testament in the evening.

Our hope is that in a few years we might be able to have a few families leaving our church in order to establish another church where they apply the same principles. And, of course, we’ll be practicing what in our heritage is called covenant evangelism, from generation to generation. ■

Andrea Ferrari (Masters in Philosophy, University of Wales, and Masters in Philosophy, Università Statale, Milan) has written a thesis on John Calvin’s ethics, and articles for theological journals and magazines. He is also the author of John Diodati’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture (Reformation Heritage Books). Rev. Ferrari is an associate pastor of Christ United Reformed Church in Santee, California, with the specific calling of a missionary to the Filadelfia Church in Milan and to establish a federation of Reformed Churches in Italy. In the near future, the Filadelfia Church will be reconstituted as a Reformed Church with elders and deacons, confessing the Three Forms of Unity and using an Italian translation of the URCNA Church Order.

Simonetta Carr was born in Reggio Emilia, Italy. Besides her busy job as a mother of eight, she has written for several newspapers and magazines and has translated the works of several Christian authors into Italian. She is author of the series, “Christian Biographies for Young Readers” (Reformation Heritage Books). She lives in Santee, California, with her husband Thomas and family, and is a member and Sunday school teacher at Christ URC.

22 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

C A N O N F O R M AT I O N

On Faith and History A Comparison of Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, and Luke

BY

One of the most treasured classics of the ancient world is the saga of the Trojan War known as The Iliad. Homer, the book’s author, lived about 800 years before Christ, while the Trojan War he reports on took place some 400 years prior. Therefore, The Iliad is not an eyewitness account of the war, but is more of a record of the tradition that Homer had received in his day. This epic tale is more than a mere chronicle of the events that transpired during the assault against Troy; it also contains many detailed accounts of the gods interfering with the likes of mortal men. Here the natural intermingles with the supernatural, and it is for this reason that many historians consider The Iliad to be more poetry than history. In other words, it is not to be relied upon as a factual account of what really happened during the war. Though some of the people and events of the book are indeed historical, the basic facts of the story have faded into legend across the span of time.

Interestingly enough, this is basically the view that many people in the academic world hold concerning the Bible. It’s an accumulation of legends and traditions in which the natural and supernatural interact. But we should stop for a moment and ask ourselves why we believe this is a good explanation of Homer but not of Moses. Why is it easy for us to believe that Zeus and Athena are mythological, but not Yahweh and Elijah? Thinking this through will help us understand why some people think the way they do about the text we refer to as Scripture.

So how can we be sure that the Bible is an authentic and trustworthy account of ancient history? To this question some simply respond, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” But few of us say this with regard to other kinds of inspired literature. In fact, Homer himself begins his epic this way: “Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians.”1 Indeed, it was common for ancient books of this period to begin with a dedication to the muse, for it was believed the author was merely an instrumental vehicle while the words themselves were divine in origin. So if you were to ask people from Ancient Greece whether or not they believed Homer’s account, one answer you would likely hear would be, “Without doubt, for it is the very word of the goddess.”

Here, as well as with someone on the street who hears voices, a healthy dose of skepticism is good to apply. Just because a person claims to speak for God doesn’t in fact make it so. It’s one thing to claim divine inspiration, and another thing altogether to vindicate that claim. In the book of Proverbs, we find the maxim, “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps” (14:15). Christians therefore are cautioned not to believe any and every claim, for this approach would clearly lead to idolatry and superstition. Rather than being gullible, we

SHANE ROSENTHAL M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 2 3

ing ancient history, for he admits at one point, “Who could speak decisively about a matter of such extreme all things closely for some time past, to write antiquity?”3 Here we see an immediate difference between his work and an orderly account for you, most excellent The Iliad. Homer did speak decisively, because the muse spoke directly Theophilus, that you may have certainty through him. It was the very word of the goddess. Livy, however, is a mere concerning the things you have been taught.” mortal whose task is to write down the origins of the Roman Republic, are called to think through the various claims that present much of which cannot be clearly determined due to the themselves in the marketplace of ideas. ravages of time.

Livy also discourses on some of the problems historians have to face. “I am aware,” he writes, “that for historians to make extravagant claims is, and always has Another significant ancient historian is Herodotus of been, all too common.”4 He even admits that “events Halicarnassus, whose history recounts the Greco-Persian before Rome was born or thought of, have come to us in wars six to seven centuries before the time of Christ. old tales with more of the charm of poetry than of sound Living approximately in the fifth century B.C., Herodotus historical record.” But the author does not continue in this skeptical path for long: is often credited as being one of the fathers of history. How did he achieve such a feat? Rather than beginning his Such traditions I propose neither to affirm nor refute. work with a hymn to the muse, Herodotus starts off with There is no reason, I feel, to object when antiquity the following words: “Herodotus of Halicarnassus here draws no hard line between the human and superdisplays his inquiry, so that human achievements may not natural: it adds dignity to the past, and, if any nation become forgotten in time.”2 Behind the word translated deserves the privilege of claiming a divine ancestry, here as “inquiry” is the Greek word historia, the very root that nation is our own.5 of our English word for “history.” Unlike Homer, Herodotus does not rely on the gods for his report, but he has personally researched and investigated the informaHere Livy is no naturalist. He is willing to allow supertion he passes along to his readers. His research focuses on natural explanations in his history because it gives Rome the human causes of the conflict, and we are no longer dignity. The question, however, still remains: Did the given access to the heavenly courts as we were in The Iliad. things in the report actually happen? It may make the Although it is a researched report, Herodotus is not report more interesting and readable, but is it true? This really an eyewitness to most of the events he recounts. He is a great example of the problem of historical bias. Livy’s simply records the reports of many individuals and bias, evident in the lines, “I hope my passion for Rome’s nations. Sometimes he will admit that he has come across past has not impaired my judgment,”6 did perhaps allow a variety of differing accounts for a single event and, not him to be less critical of the “fantastic and supernatural knowing which is true, he simply reports all views, letting stories” he included in his history of the founding of his the reader make the choice. Herodotus also includes many own mother country. fantastic stories, some of which approach the supernatural. Occasionally he will even admit of his own personal skepticism about these kinds of tales, but he includes them in his report because they happen to be popular In his famous book The History of the Peloponnesian War, beliefs of the time. Although his work did in fact help to Thucydides recounts the battles between Sparta and create the science of history, many today end up reading Athens in the fourth century B.C. In this work, the author Herodotus in a way similar to that of Homer. In actuality, greatly helped to pioneer the science of history as we his history tells us more about ancient beliefs than actual know it today. Following the approach and style of ancient events.

Herodotus, yet with vast improvements, Thucydides writes,

“It seemed good to me also, having followed

Herodotus of Halicarnassus

Thucydides

Livy Another ancient chronicler worth investigating is the Roman historian Livy, who lived from 59 B.C. to A.D. 17.

His book The Early History of Rome traces the roots of Rome’s founding to the height of its Republic. Livy recognizes early on in his work that there is a problem report24 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

For though the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained, yet the evidences which an inquiry carried as far back as was practicable leads me to trust, all point to the conclusion that there was nothing on a great scale, either in war or in other matters.7

O N

Again, here the task is human and difficult. It took a great deal of inquiry and evidence gathering; yet even after all that work, many of the events of ancient history, Thucydides admits, could not be clearly determined. But doing his best with the evidence available, he put together a story he argues is trustworthy on the main details. This is why he is considered, even more than Herodotus, the father of history. And yet, even here we discover that we’re still in the realm of “trust.” This is not blind faith but a kind of trust that proceeds with caution and rests on available evidence.

Thucydides not only researched his report, he also was an eyewitness to much of the war he chronicles, having served in the Athenian military for a number of years. This gives his work a great deal of reliability. But even more than his personal presence in the war, the author’s critical approach is more than anything the cause of his greatness: Having now given the result of my inquiries into early times, I grant that there will be a difficulty in believing every particular detail. The way that most men deal with traditions, even traditions of their own country, is to receive them all alike as they are delivered, without applying any critical test whatever.8 Thucydides then demonstrates that various Greek cities had a number of false ideas and assumptions regarding various political policies. He concludes with the remark, “So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.”9 This, then, is the true task of the historian: he is to investigate and research the various claims that come his way, and he is to apply critical tests to his subject of study. We would do well here to recall Solomon’s proverb that “the simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.”

Thucydides writes, “On the whole, the conclusions I have drawn from the proofs quoted may, I believe, safely be relied on.”10 Again, the historian here is telling us that his work can be trusted because his conclusions are supported by the evidence.

Assuredly they will not be disturbed either by the lines of a poet displaying the exaggeration of his craft, or by the compositions of the chroniclers that are attractive at truth’s expense; the subjects they treat of being out of the reach of evidence, and time having robbed most of them of historical value by enthroning them in the region of legend. We can rest satisfied with having proceeded upon the clearest data, and having arrived at conclusions as exact as can be expected in matters of such antiquity.11 One of the best known aspects of Thucydides’ history is the fact that he records a great number of moving speeches throughout his work, such as the famous funeral

F A I T H

A N D

H I S T O R Y

oration of Pericles. Early in his work, he explains his methodology: With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one’s memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.12 Here we see Thucydides’ honesty about the problem of memory. He does not recount these speeches word for word but has crafted them partly by his own memory, by the use of various reports and also by his assumptions of what was demanded of a particular speech. Some here are critical at this point, arguing that the historian has admittedly written some fiction into his supposedly nonfiction work. But the brilliance of Thucydides is that he admits his approach at the outset, so that we know his speeches are general summaries.

The Gospel According to Luke Many today argue that the Bible is not a true historical record, much less the Word of God, because of its various accounts of the miraculous and supernatural. But how do we know that these sorts of things are impossible from the get-go? To simply assert that they cannot occur merely represents a faith conviction: the faith of naturalism. But as we have seen, true history requires an investigation or an inquiry. So leaving our assumptions about the world behind for a moment, let us inquire into the life of Jesus by examining the records of an ancient historian by the name of Luke. The first words of this ancient text read as follows: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4) Notice here that the author does not begin with a hymn or prayer to the gods, nor does he rest his claim of trustworthiness on divine inspiration. Rather, Luke tells Theophilus that he has closely researched and investigated the events of the life of Jesus. He has even personally interviewed eyewitnesses, and this is why his readers can have certainty.

In short, the style of this historian is exactly what is admired in the works of Thucydides, the father of history.

Therefore, the form and structure of Luke’s Gospel should M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 2 5

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for on publicly revealed truth-claims—in particular, our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was the claim of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance be admired by believer and historian alike. But since Luke with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, was reporting on recent events and had the ability to interthen to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than view living eyewitnesses, he had an obvious advantage five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are over Thucydides, whose record was less certain since it still alive. (1 Cor. 15:3–6) dealt with “matters of such antiquity.” And unlike Herodotus, Luke does not quote a number of sources, Not only is the resurrection of Christ public knowledge, leaving the reader to pick the version he likes best, but he but at one point Paul argues that there were over five hungives us certainty based on the quality of his interviews. dred people who witnessed the incredible event together, Yet, there is a problem with the content of the eyewitmany of whom were still alive and available for interness report that Luke presents. For it is claimed in this text views. Paul continues in his argument by saying that “if that a rabbi named Jesus was seen healing people, calmChrist has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain ing storms, raising the dead, and so forth. People heard the and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). In other words, voice of God from heaven say of this man, “This is my he is saying that if Christ did not in fact come back to life beloved Son with whom I am well pleased” (3:22). Here from the dead, in history, then Christianity is a big worthwe find content similar to that of Homer, within a strucless myth. ture surpassing the quality of Thucydides. Here God is Personally, I think we should allow those who do not intermingling with the affairs of men, yet in the midst of believe the Bible to pursue this line of inquiry with all their a well-researched report! might. It is possible that Christianity is founded upon a lie.

Luke is also the author of another biblical text known But if so, that becomes a fascinating historical question in as the Acts of the Apostles, which focuses more on the its own right. How did such a lie achieve such historical apostle Paul than any other figure. In Acts 17, Paul is prominence? At this point we should help furnish serious recorded as saying, “God has fixed a day on which he will inquirers with books and arguments to spur them on in judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has their investigation, but our principal task should always be appointed; and of this he has given proof to all by raising to encourage them not to proceed with the blind faith of him from the dead” (17:31). Here the Athenians were not naturalism. Rather, we should continually push them to merely encouraged to have faith but were given a reason research and inquire about these strange texts from ancient for believing. God had interrupted the course of world hisPalestine and to be open minded as they read and investory in the person of Christ and would return someday to tigate these matters. Ask them to come up with alternajudge the living and the dead. The proof of this was Jesus’ tive explanations and follow them through logically. You resurrection from the dead. This is also the sense one gets will find that the Gospel of Luke and other New Testament from reading Luke’s report of Paul’s testimony before the texts are not easily dismissed.

Judean governor Porcius Festus and King Herod Agrippa: All of this is to say that the Christian faith is a reasonable thing. It is not a mere truth-claim. There are hundreds, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of if not thousands, of people who have claimed to speak for your mind; your great learning is driving you out of God. Is Homer right? Muhammad? How about the crazy your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my guy at the bus station? This is where Christianity has an mind, most excellent Festus, but what I am saying is obvious advantage. It does not merely say, “Believe,” but true and reasonable. For the king knows about these gives proof, reasons, and reliable evidences for faith. Those things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded who refuse to accept the testimony of Luke merely because that none of these things has escaped his notice, for he reports miracles and supernatural activity show that this has not been done in a corner.” (Acts 26:24–26) they themselves have already adopted a faith commitment. But those who, in the spirit of Herodotus and Paul does not attempt to persuade these men by emotional Thucydides, investigate the events in the life of Christ, manipulation or by encouraging a leap of faith. Rather, will find there is something here worth believing. ■ Luke’s report shows that Paul grounded his faith on publicly revealed truth-claims—in particular, the claim of Shane Rosenthal (M.A. in historical theology, Westminster SemChrist’s resurrection from the dead. Revealing Luke’s reliinary California) is executive producer of the White Horse Inn ability, Paul himself writes something similar in his First radio broadcast. He, along with his wife and four children, resides Epistle to the Corinthians in approximately A.D. 55: in St. Louis, Missouri.

Luke’s report shows that Paul grounded his faith

26 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Livy, 30 (preface to Bk. 1).

Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, trans.

Richard Crawley (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2006), 5 (1.1). Crawley’s translation first appeared in 1876. Italics mine.

8Thucydides, 17 (1.20).

9Thucydides, 17 (1.20).

10Thucydides, 17–18 (1.21).

11Thucydides, 18 (1.21).

12Thucydides, 18 (1.22).

6

Homer, The Iliad of Homer, trans. Richard Lattimore (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 59 (1.1–2).

2Herodotus, The Histories of Herodotus, trans. Aubrey de Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1954, revised edition, 1996), 3 (preface to Bk. 1).

3Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans. Aubrey de Selincourt (New York: Penguin Books, 1960, revised edition, 2002), 33 (1.3).

4Livy, 29 (preface to Bk. 1).

5Livy, 29–30 (preface to Bk. 1).

1

7

Jesus: A New Biography

by John Bar-Zebedee Papyrus Press, Late First Century 21 chapters (softcover), priceless The general public has had to wait a long time for these intimate personal impressions of a great preacher, though the substance of them has for many years been familiarly known in Church circles.

The friends of Mr. Bar-Zebedee have frequently urged the octogenarian divine to commit his early memories to paper; this he has now done, with the assistance and under the careful editorship of the Vicar of St. Faith’s. The book fulfils a long-felt want.

Very little has actually been put in print about the striking personality who exercised so great an influence upon the last generation. The little anonymous collections of “Sayings” by “Q” is now, of course, out of print and unobtainable. This is the less regrettable in that the greater part of it has been embodied in Mr. J. Marks’s brief obituary study and in the subsequent biographies of Mr. Matthews and Mr. Lucas (who, unhappily, was unable to complete his companion volume of the Acts of the Apostles). But hitherto, all these reports have been compiled at second hand. Now for the first time comes the testimony of a close friend of Jesus, and, as we should expect, it offers a wealth of fresh material.

With great good judgment, Mr. Bar-Zebedee has refrained from going over old ground, except for the purpose of tidying up the chronology which, in previous accounts, was conspicuously lacking. Thus, he makes it plain that Jesus paid at least two visits to Jerusalem during the three years of His ministry—a circumstance which clears up a number of confusing points in the narrative of His arrest; and the two examinations in the ecclesiastical courts are at last clearly distinguished. Many new episodes are related; in particular, it has now become possible to

reveal the facts about the mysterious affair at Bethany, hitherto discreetly veiled out of consideration for the surviving members of the Lazarus family, whom rumour had subjected to much vulgar curiosity and political embarrassment. But the most interesting and important portions of the book are those devoted to Christ’s lectures in the Temple and the theological and philosophical instructions given privately to His followers. These, naturally, differ considerably in matter and manner from the open-air “talks” delivered before a mixed audience, and shed a flood of new light, both on the massive intellectual equipment of the preacher and on the truly astonishing nature of His claim to authority. Mr. Bar-Zebedee interprets and comments upon these remarkable discourses with considerable learning, and with the intimate understanding of one familiar with his Master’s habits of thought.

Finally, the author of these memoirs reveals himself as that delightful rara avis, a “born writer.” He commands a fine economy and precision in the use of dialogue; his character-sketches (as in the delicate comedy of the blind beggar at the Pool of Siloam) are little masterpieces of quiet humour, while his descriptions of the Meal in the Upper Room, the visit of Simon Bar-Jonah and himself to the Sepulchre, and the last uncanny encounter by the Lake of Tiberias are distinguished by an atmospheric quality which places this account of the Nazarene in a category apart.

Dorothy L. Sayers is an English crime writer, poet, playwright, essayist, translator, and Christian humanist.

The above material was extracted from an essay titled “A Vote of Thanks to Cyrus” from Sayers’ book, Letters to a Diminished Church (2004). Reprinted by permission. Thomas Nelson Inc., Nashville, Tennessee. All rights reserved.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 2 7

C A N O N F O R M AT I O N

Gospels, Gospels Everywhere?

Gnosticism and the New Testament Canon

W

hy are we still talking about the Gnostic gospels? After all, the church has successfully weathered The Da Vinci Code storm, despite the tumultuous frenzy it caused. As New Testament professor Ben Witherington quipped, “When people calmed down, they realized it was closer to hysterical than historical fiction.”1 Furthermore, when the Gospel of Judas was unveiled a few years ago, the overblown attention it received from the media seemed to dwindle relatively quickly. Even scholars known for their affinity for Gnosticism helped diminish the fanfare. April DeConick strongly chastised National Geographic for its disingenuous translation,2 and James M. Robinson acknowledged he wrote his book about Judas prior to inspecting the actual document.3 Accordingly, the dust from these trials has settled and biblical Christianity has emerged untarnished.

Be that as it may, the same cannot be said for Christianity’s image, particularly its perceived truthfulness. As I currently spend my days talking with skeptics of 28 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

all stripes on the campus of the University of California at Los Angeles, I am surprised how utterly convinced most are that the New Testament was composed and compiled by intolerant individuals with a biased agenda. Its onesided portrayal of Jesus, they assert, was established as orthodoxy only after opposing voices were forcefully silenced. Not a week goes by without someone reaching for this arrow in his quiver of excuses for dismissing Christianity. The Da Vinci Code Jesus who fathered a child through Mary Magdalene may sound implausible to many, but Jesus as the product of politics remains all the rage.

As well-known antagonist Bart Ehrman explains in Lost Christianities (a college textbook), there was no consensus regarding the identity and significance of Jesus for centuries. Four Gospels said he was God in the flesh, dying as payment for our sins and rising again on the third day. Yet other gospels, those of the Gnostic variety, pre-

BY

MARK A. PIERSON

G O S P E L S ,

sented Jesus as more of a paranormal mystic whose secret teachings often differ radically from traditional Christianity. Ehrman’s bottom line is that no one depiction of Jesus is more authoritative than another. Those who claim otherwise, from early church fathers to Christians of today, have let their theological preferences determine their conclusions. The creation of the New Testament canon, we are told, is a quintessential case of the winners writing the history books—or, as it were, the holy books.

From college professors to conspiracy theorists, this provocative premise has become fodder for nearly anyone who takes issue with the origins of Christianity. And it is easy to see why. For if the wrong gospels were chosen for the wrong reasons, then Christians have been mistaken about Jesus for nearly two millennia. The stakes simply could not be higher. But when the evidence is weighed, do revisionists really have a leg to stand on? Is it reasonable to think the Gnostics possessed independent material about Jesus and rightly understood his role in salvation?

Can these alternate texts be harmonized with the New Testament, allowing for their inclusion? Which gospels are the most reliable sources about Jesus? As we attempt to answer these questions, we shall consider the substance of Gnosticism, what kind of Jesus the Gnostic gospels present, and which gospels the earliest witnesses considered most credible.

What We Know About Those “In the Know” he ancient religious movement known today as Gnosticism was both indistinct and eclectic, making it difficult to nail down a one-size-fits-all definition.

In fact, one of the few points of agreement among scholars is that Gnosticism was anything but monolithic. Some forms may have appeared indistinguishable from Christianity in the eyes of pagans. Other versions had more in common with kabbalistic Judaism. Still others were more in line with the Greco-Roman mystery religions. Much of Gnosticism was highly secretive—there was no Gnostic church—which likely accounts for the paucity of early material about its adherents (save, perhaps, a few brief remarks from the New Testament).4 What is more, the extant Gnostic writings reflect incompatible beliefs among themselves. With so many gray areas, is it possible to discern much of anything about Gnosticism?

In short, yes. Although no single trait serves as the umbrella under which each variation of Gnosticism neatly fits, the general worldview of the Gnostics is not elusive.

In The Missing Gospels, Darrell Bock notes their shared understanding of dualism, cosmogony, and soteriology.5 Two conflicting gods occupied center stage in much of Gnostic thought, despite the involvement of numerous other supernatural entities (including angels, aeons, and archons).6 The supreme god, who is akin to Plato’s “The Good,” is utterly transcendent and therefore unknowable. The lesser god, sometimes known as the Demiurge, is the creator of the cosmos. When the Old Testament was

T

G O S P E L S

E V E R Y W H E R E ?

overlaid with this dualism, the Demiurge was often identified with the God of Genesis. Only an inferior deity, the Gnostics reasoned, would create matter, become jealous, ask questions as though ignorant, and be described in anthropomorphic terms.7 The creation may be inherently wicked, but a contrast between good and evil nonetheless exists within it. Light, spirit, and knowledge are associated with the true unknowable god, whereas darkness, matter, and ignorance represent the work of the Demiurge. In humans, these positive characteristics correspond to one’s soul, or inner divine spirit. Not unlike Socrates, Gnostics valued the soul while the body was merely a casing that decomposed. Once free from its mortal shell, the soul could ascend to a higher realm of being where the supreme god resides.

This transmigration is only possible, however, if a savior figure is sent into the cosmos to reveal the dualistic nature of reality. As there is no “fall” into “sin” in Gnosticism, and since evil is not the result of man’s doing, salvation primarily consists of obtaining and exercising this crucial knowledge (gnösis in Greek). By achieving a sense of connection with good/spiritual things and by avoiding those things that are evil/material, redemption can result. Gnostics did not recognize forgiveness or atonement in the biblical sense, though they did name biblical figures as their enlightening “savior,” such as Jesus, Adam, and Seth.

Another widespread characteristic of Gnosticism was its parasitic nature. The fabric of Gnostic thought, like countless other beliefs of that time, was deeply rooted in Greek philosophy, with Platonism serving as the primary lens for viewing reality. And while it remains a matter of debate which Gnostic sect borrowed from which preexisting faith(s), it is a rare claim indeed to say the Gnostics were religious innovators. From Docetists to Mandaeans to Sethians to Valentinians, stealing and synthesizing appear to have been fairly common practices. It is therefore imprudent to jump on the current bandwagon of reclassifying Gnosticism as a legitimate early expression of Christianity when no solid evidence suggests this was the case. Far more likely, the Gnostics plagiarized and distorted the beliefs of Christians.

The Gnostic Jesus of Thomas, Mary, and Peter arly church fathers, some of whom examined the Gnostic texts firsthand, swiftly rejected Gnostic beliefs as blatant heresy. In modern times, when it was presumed these writings were forever lost, people began to question whether the Fathers had misrepresented or demonized their opponents. Thanks to a few remarkable discoveries over the past century—the most significant being the cache of documents unearthed at Nag Hammadi, Egypt—people can now walk into their local bookstore and see for themselves. Space precludes us from exploring the assortment of acts, epistles, revelations, and other writings recovered from the sands of time, so we will confine our comments to three of the Gnostic gospels. (These three provide a sampling of

E

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 2 9

here, too, things are not as they seem. The Gnostics who penned this work were Docetists, claimsaving work made for an easy decision when ing Jesus merely seemed (from the Greek dokeö) to have a physexcluding Gnostic texts from the canon. ical body. Docetic elements are possibly seen when Jesus feels Gnostic views on Jesus, yet have also been assigned conno pain during the crucifixion (4, 10), declares his own troversial dates—see below.) power (not God) has left him (5, 10), and is taken up into The most notorious is undoubtedly the Gospel of heaven from the cross (5, 10). Despite this premature Thomas, often considered the earliest Gnostic gospel. It ascension, two angelic beings descend on Easter Sunday purports to be a collection of Jesus’ secret teachings, some and bring Jesus out of the tomb. After their heads extend of which correspond with those found in Matthew, Mark, all the way to heaven, Jesus’ head reaches beyond the Luke, and John. This is partly why members of the Jesus heavens (9, 40). The cross itself even exits the tomb and Seminar—best known for voting on the authentic words of utters an audible “Yes” when asked if Jesus preached to Jesus with colored beads—elevated it to canonical status in those who sleep (9, 41–42). While the content of Peter is their 1993 publication, The Five Gospels.8 But is the Jesus of familiar in certain respects, it is also fantastical and smacks Thomas actually compatible with the biblical Jesus? of embellishment.12 More significantly, Docetism flat out First and foremost, the Gospel of Thomas contains no forbids Christ’s incarnation, without which the atonehistorical narrative. Since knowing this context is crucial ment is impossible. Only by sacrificing his flesh and blood for interpretation, much of it is inscrutable. Regardless, it on our behalf could Jesus redeem fallen humanity (Matt. is difficult to imagine what would clarify utterances such 20:28; John 6:51). as Saying 7: “Blessed is the lion which becomes man These gospels have little material about who Jesus is when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the aside from his role as a (supernatural) teacher and Gnostic lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.”9 Thomas’s redeemer. The Gospel of Thomas may come close to depicting him as a divine figure (Sayings 13, 61, 77), but Jesus was not always this cryptic, but he was certainly he could also pass for a Zen master. This is a far cry from abrasive in terms of doctrine. After affirming polytheism, being the God of Abraham, Yahweh himself, as he is in the Jesus presumably upped the ante with a goddess referNew Testament. Such disparate beliefs about Jesus’ idenence: “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where tity and saving work made for an easy decision when there are two or one, I am with him” (Saying 30); “He excluding Gnostic texts from the canon. who knows the father and the mother will be called the son of a harlot” (Saying 105). Ironically, this Jesus taught The Dating Game against fasting, praying, and giving alms (Saying 14) and directed people inward for acquiring salvation: “That which hen historians are confronted with discrepant you have will save you if you bring it forth from youraccounts, they attempt to discover which came selves” (Saying 70). Without any historical details, espefirst. Early reports are generally thought to be cially a crucifixion or resurrection account, the Gospel of more accurate, while later reports can be more dubious and Thomas remains esoteric; yet it also clashes sharply at often rely on the former for their material.13 So whose vertimes with the canonical gospels. sion of Jesus dates closest to the person and events in The Gospel of Mary mainly consists of Jesus’ instrucquestion? How early were certain gospels recognized as tions as well, but its context is clearer. After the Gentiles reliable, causing later ones to be discarded as spurious? Few “did not spare him” (9, 10–12),10 Jesus came to answer the topics pertaining to the historical Jesus or earliest disciples’ questions. This is not, however, a standard refChristianity are manipulated by revisionists more than erence to Christ’s cross and the empty tomb. For when these. Some claim a cacophony of views about Jesus perPeter asked, “What is the sin of the world?” Jesus replied, sisted until the precise boundaries of the New Testament “There is no sin” in actuality but only behavior arbitrarily were finally determined in the fourth century. Others called “sin” (7, 13–16). Shortly thereafter he described claim certain Gnostic gospels not only pre-date Matthew, how the soul freed at death must use its gnösis to ascend Mark, Luke, and John, but were also used as their source to its place of rest. Thus, since Gnostics spurned the idea material. These assertions may sound troubling, but they of salvation coming through anything physical, when the are merely misleading and tenuous speculations. disciples were enjoined to “preach the gospel” (9, 8–10) It is true that a handful of key events in the fourth centheir so-called good news would have excluded Jesus tury resulted in a fixed canon, such as Athanasius creatshedding his blood to redeem sinners. Like Thomas, the ing the first list that named all twenty-seven books, and Jesus of Mary is clearly at odds with the Jesus of the New Augustine presiding over church councils that affirmed Testament. their status. But as the great church historian Eusebius Somewhat surprisingly, the Gospel of Peter exclusively made clear toward the beginning of that century, only the narrates Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection.11 But fringes of the canon remained uncertain, not its core.

Such disparate beliefs about Jesus’ identity and

W

30 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

G O S P E L S ,

There might have been some doubts about books like James and Jude, but nobody seriously questioned which gospels rightly belonged.14 This is evidenced by the earliest witnesses both quoting the New Testament Gospels directly and reflecting beliefs that are incongruent with Gnosticism. We shall consider a few examples here.

At the end of the first century (c. 96), Clement of Rome wrote a fraternal letter to the church at Corinth. Since this was likely the first Christian writing outside the New Testament, it provides great insight about the earliest Christians’ beliefs. Clement repeatedly emphasized the redemption that came by Christ’s shed blood and him giving his flesh for our flesh.15 Clement also referred to God as the Father and Creator of the universe,16 with the physical creation itself bearing witness to the coming resurrection of the flesh.17 Views such as these are hardly Gnostic. Moreover, two quotes from Jesus found in the synoptic Gospels were offered, and his words were placed on equal footing with the Old Testament Scriptures.18 About a decade later (c. 107), Ignatius of Antioch composed seven letters while being escorted to Rome for his execution. He addressed Docetism directly in some, saying Jesus was no more an illusion than were Ignatius’ own chains.19 On the contrary, Jesus was God in human form,20 who truly ate and drank, truly had nails pierce his body, and truly rose again with the same flesh-and-blood reality.21 In support of this last point, Ignatius referenced the resurrection scene in Luke where Jesus ate fish, invited people to touch him, and verbally affirmed, “I am no bodiless phantom.”22 Polycarp of Smyrna was born around A.D. 70, making him a valuable link between second-century fathers and eyewitnesses of Christ, including some of the apostles.23 He, too, identified Docetism as heresy, calling its adherents antichrists who are of the devil and the spawn of Satan.

After admonishing his readers to return to the Word originally delivered, he then quoted from the synoptics.24 The Jesus these early witnesses believed in clearly flies in the face of Gnosticism. Since the authority of the Gospels the fathers used was assumed and not argued for, it is probable their readers had already accepted them as reliable sources about Jesus. It is also telling that no Gnostic gospels were mentioned, presumably because they were not yet written. This is similar to when Marcion, a wealthy promoter of Gnosticism, created his own canon in 139. Rather than collecting only Gnostic texts together, or interspersing some with biblical books, he used heavily edited versions of Luke and ten of Paul’s Epistles. He would have had little recourse without any Gnostic gospels at his disposal. At the end of the second century, when Gnostic texts did exist, Polycarp’s pupil Irenaeus criticized them on the grounds that they had been produced recently.25 In contrast, the vast majority of scholars now agree that the New Testament Gospels were composed in the first century.

In spite of all this, there are some who claim that Thomas, Mary, and Peter contain the earliest Jesus mate-

G O S P E L S

E V E R Y W H E R E ?

rial and were even used by authors of the traditional gospels.26 No tangible evidence, however, supports this theory. Zero Gnostic manuscripts have ever been found that pre-date the oldest known copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.27 But why let annoying little facts like this get in the way? Simply imagine earlier versions of the Gnostic texts and conveniently remove all material betraying their late composition. Then date these hypothetical documents and—voilà!—you have just found the first gospels. As much as this method resembles cheating, it is nevertheless how certain academics play the game.

Were these scholars right, we might expect to find an early copy of Matthew alongside Peter or John next to Thomas, since Christians quickly moved from single scrolls to bound books. In fact, no such discovery has ever occurred. Furthermore, when people first tried harmonizing the accounts of Jesus in the second century, the different sources woven together were always Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Had the Gnostic gospels been of equal status, and certainly if they had been sources for the New Testament Gospels, it is highly unlikely they would have been left on the cutting room floor.

By Whose Authority? e have seen how the Gnostics habitually borrowed their beliefs from others, integrating them with Platonic thought. Thus, Gnosticism’s diverse expressions share common tenets that conflict with monotheism and with God creating matter and calling it “good.” We have also seen how the Gnostic Jesus is incompatible with the Jesus of the New Testament. The former is merely a teacher who imparts knowledge, allowing you to pull yourself up by your own spiritual bootstraps and ascend to god; the latter is the Creator made flesh, who descended to sacrifice himself and secure your salvation forever.

That the extent of the New Testament canon remained unclear until the fourth century is irrelevant when determining which sources provide the most reliable data about Jesus. The first witnesses unanimously relied on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and knew nothing of the Gnostic gospels. Not only do the surviving manuscripts confirm their late date, there is also no indication they were ever mingled with the canonical gospels. Theories that claim certain Gnostic texts existed in the first century are based on hypothetical evidence, not actual evidence.

Yet, the canonical Gospels do not derive their authority simply from being early. The authors were all connected to the apostolic circle—those who had seen and heard Jesus themselves. It was this firsthand experience of Christ that put them in the unique position to record accurately his teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection.

Despite the names attached to the Gnostic gospels, they cannot be traced back to persons who actually knew Jesus.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John can. The early church fathers had good reason for adopting the apostles’ beliefs as their own. For these Gospels originated with those

W

M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 3 1

whom Jesus himself taught and sent into the world to proclaim the good news. The real authority then is the Christ to whom their readers are directed, and who comes to us through their words. ■

Mark A. Pierson (M.A., Concordia University, Irvine, California) is a contributor to Learning at the Foot of the Cross: A Lutheran Vision for Education, eds. Joel D. Heck and Angus J. L. Menuge (Austin: Concordia University Press, forthcoming 2010).

He is obtaining his M.Div. through Concordia Theological Seminary and serves as vicar at University Lutheran Chapel in Los Angeles, a parish dedicated to campus ministry.

Ben Witherington, “Oh Those Pesky ‘Angels and Demons’,” Beliefnet (17 May 2009), online at http://blog.beliefnet.com/ bibleandculture/2009/05/oh-those-pesky-angels-and-demons. html.

2See April D. DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (New York: Continuum Books, 2007), 45–65.

3See David P. Scaer, “Musings of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL)” Concordia Theological Quarterly, 72 (April 2008), 184.

4For example, 1 John 4:1–3 warns against those who said Jesus did not come in the flesh.

5Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternate Christianities (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 19–20.

6Some Gnostics thought aeons were emanations of the true unknowable god’s characteristics or aspects, such as Life, Truth, and Wisdom. They were distinct from and lesser than this transcendent god, yet (somewhat confusingly) they also made up the totality of god. Archons were considered rulers of the lower realms of heaven and served the imperfect creator god. They could create angels to assist them in their tasks.

7DeConick, 28–32.

8The Jesus Seminar attempted to determine which sayings of Jesus were authentic and which were put into his mouth later.

Members cast their votes with one of four different colored beads, each signifying the level of likelihood that Jesus really said or meant what the text reports. Starting with the assumption that he would never have claimed to be God, never would have quoted the Old Testament, never would have spoken in parables, and so forth, members voted out over 80 percent of Jesus’ words in the New Testament. For a critique of the seminar’s highly questionable methodology, see Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?” in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, eds. Michael J. Wilkens and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 18–21.

9All quotations from the Gospel of Thomas are taken from The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, revised edition (New York: HarperCollins, 1990), 126–38.

10All quotations from the Gospel of Mary are taken from The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 524–27.

11Some scholars argue that this manuscript, known as the Akhmîm fragment, may not be the Gospel of Peter after all. See 1

32 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 78–85.

12See Evans, 81–85. Raymond Brown’s translation of the Gospel of Peter is available online at www.livius.org/ penpg/peter/gospel_of_peter.html.

13See C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 91–94.

14Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III.xxv.1–7. The Fathers’ texts are from the public domain and can be found in the online Christian Classics Ethereal Library (www.ccel.org/fathers.html).

151 Clement 49:6.

161 Clement 19:2–3.

171 Clement 23:1–26:3.

181 Clement 13:1–2; 46:7–8.

19Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 4:2.

20Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians 19:3.

21Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians 9:1–2.

22Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 3:1–2. Cf. Luke 24:39–43.

23Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.iv.1.

24Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians 7:1–2.

25Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.xi.9.

26Some examples: Helmut Koester, “Q and its Relatives” in Gospel Origins & Christian Beginnings, eds. James E. Goehring et al. (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), 49–63; Karen King, The Gospel of Mary Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2003), 115–16; Ron D. Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 78.

27For the oldest papyri of the New Testament Gospels, see Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 26, 32.

Speaking Of…

“T

herefore, relying on this pledge, we trust that we are sons of God, for God's natural Son

fashioned for himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from our bones, that he might be one with us. Ungrudgingly, he took our nature upon himself to impart to us what was his, and to become both Son of God and Son of man in common with us.”

—John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

INTERVIEW f o r

d i a l o g u e

i n

a n d

o u t

o f

o u r

c i r c l e s

An Interview with Paul Maier

The Canon According to The Da Vinci Code When Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code first caused a stir, White Horse Inn cohost Michael Horton interviewed Paul L. Maier who co-authored The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? with Hank Hanegraaff. As their discussion is relevant to this issue on canon formation, we are providing it here for our readers. Dr. Maier is professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University and a much-published author of both scholarly and popular works.

I would like to touch on some of the claims Dan Brown makes in The Da Vinci Code and get your take as an opportunity to get into the larger faith and history question.

First of all, Brown writes, “History is always written by the winners.

When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe; as Napoleon once said, ‘What is history but a fable agreed upon?’ By its very nature history is always a one-sided account.” And out of that—aside from the obvious irony that he’s writing a history masquerading as fiction—he says, “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false. The Bible is a product of man, my dear, not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times and it has evolved through countless translations, editions and revisions.” He says, “More than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them.” Brown claims that it was a pagan emperor, Constantine the Great, who was responsible for

compiling what we call the New Testament canon. How do we respond to those most basic claims?

Here you have an example of the methodology of Dan Brown. He gives 10 percent truth, luring the reader into thinking everything else is credible, and then he goes on to 90 percent falsehood.

First of all, the premise that history is always written by the victor is not true. Sometimes losers write history. For example, the great Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece: Athens lost and Thucydides, who’s an Athenian, writes the history of the war.

The idea that the Bible evolved through time and that Constantine edited it is also totally wrong. The New Testament canon was pretty well fixed about 150 years before Constantine. We do not have the Bible evolving; rather, the whole trend of modern scholarship is indeed the reverse of that. Because of good textual scholarship, we’re trying to get further back as close to the original as possible. And there were not 80 gospels considered.

There are about 37 apocryphal writings, not all of them gospels; and they never made the final cut for obvious reasons: they’re fanciful, they’re derivative, and they’re second and third century under

Gnostic editorship. There’s no semblance of truth to Brown’s statement. Instead, we just have falsehood piled upon distortion.

He says that during this fusion of religions, “Constantine needed the strength of the new Christian tradition and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicea. At this gathering, many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon: the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of the sacraments, and of course, the divinity of Jesus. Until that moment in history Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet. A great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless; a mortal. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote? A relatively close vote, at that.” Is that more like the Jesus Seminar?

Notice he begins with fact: Constantine did preside at the great ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325. At that point, the truth ceases.

His claim that Jesus was regarded only as a mortal man before that is totally false. His divine nature was certainly recognized by the earliest of the church fathers.

I’m doubly furious at The Da Vinci Code for two reasons: one, as a Christian, of course, I don’t like this kind of unjustified attack; but I’m even angrier as a professor of ancient history to see how Dan Brown absolutely warps and distorts the facts. People who are not savvy to what happened two thousand

M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

The rule for canonicity is that the gospels have to be written by eyewitnesses and their material must be coherent with the rest of the Christian message. years ago are taken in by it. They assume that if something is in print, then it must be true. And it isn’t.

A lot of people on the popular level have read this book—I believe it sold some 7 million copies—and now they seem to be experts on the Nicene Creed.

Exactly. Now I don’t mind people calling attention to the origins of Christianity—that could have a good purpose. But, unfortunately, we have so many who are not sufficiently skilled in the Christian faith who think this is great revealing information their pastor never told them, which is damaging.

How about this quote: “Many scholars claim,” says Brown, “that the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity and using it to expand their own power. Nobody’s saying that Christ was a fraud or denying that he walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we’re saying is that Constantine took great advantage of Christ’s substantial influence and importance. Because he upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling his life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him god-like. The other gospels were outlawed, gathered up and burned.”

34 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

The Council of Nicea in general, and Constantine in particular, had absolutely nothing to do with the Gospels that were included in the canon—absolutely nothing at all— and the Council of Nicea didn’t decide whether Jesus was God or not. It was trying to answer the question: Was he co-eternal with the father? That’s the only thing they took up there. So, again, you have just a parade of lies.

Was it a close vote, as he suggests?

This is the comical thing. The vote was 305–2. I don’t consider that close, if I know my arithmetic.

Maybe in Florida. What do we make of the outlawing of books?

It looks like Constantine is really the most orthodox fellow in the empire, when in actual fact Constantine himself often supported the semi-Arian cause.

That’s right that later on he had some inclinations in that respect, but I don’t recall him being any kind of a book-burner. It does turn out that he tried to keep peace in the empire; and if the Council of Nicea decided, as it did, on the familiar cadences of the Nicene Creed, then he wanted the Christians to unite behind it. But he did not harry people who didn’t agree with it. Again, he had absolutely nothing to do with the compilation of the New Testament.

This is a claim that Brown makes again and again, and he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

He refers quite a bit of this scholarship to the Nag Hammadi discovery in 1945: the Dead Sea scrolls and the Egyptian scrolls. He says the scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications,

clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda to promote the divinity of the man Jesus.

That’s totally wrong. The Dead Sea scrolls, for example—which Brown claims were discovered in the early 1950s when they were discovered in 1947 (he doesn’t even have his years straight)—have nothing to do with Christianity per se. They’re very congenial to Christianity because they show the accuracy of the textual transmissions, for example, of the book of the prophet Isaiah. It gave scholars a wonderful opportunity to see how faithfully the manuscripts were transmitted, because the Isaiah scroll was two-hundred years old in Jesus’ day; the oldest text they had before that was a Masoretic text from a.d. 1006. This gave scholars a chance to check twelvehundred years’ worth of manuscript transmission of Isaiah, which was 99.9 percent the same. It’s very important to remember that. If you ever dialogue with Muslims, Islam’s one big argument against Christianity is that our Scriptures are no longer reliable because of the copious errors. Not true.

With Dan Brown and the more nuanced arguments of people like John Dominic Crossan and others associated with the Jesus Seminar, what should we make of what New Testament scholars and Ancient Near Eastern scholars have pointed out are older documents; that is, the Gnostic texts, especially the Gospel of Thomas, and so forth? What kind of agenda is at work here that says these later texts should determine the authenticity of the earlier texts— as if the earliest Christian community were Gnostic?

There’s simply a reverse historical methodology. They desperately try to demonstrate that these Gnostic gospels are earlier than the four Gospels, which is not true at all.

The Gnostic gospels are all derivative, they’re second or third century, they’re full of clashing, bizarre images of Jesus, and statements that simply have no correlation whatever with Jesus’ message in the New Testament.

There has been a big ballyhoo about the Gospel of Thomas, and the Jesus Seminar some years back had the audacity to publish a book called The Five Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas.

The rule for canonicity is that the gospels have to be written by eyewitnesses and their material must be coherent with the rest of the Christian message. Then there’s the Gospel of Thomas with Saying 112: The disciples bring Mary Magdalene to Jesus, and they say, Lord, we have a problem. Mary Magdalene is a woman and, of course, women cannot inherit the kingdom of God. How do you like that for a premise?

And Jesus says, don’t worry, I’ll turn her into a man and then she can make it. This is simply ludicrous! For people like Helmut Koester of Harvard or Elaine Pagels and others to trump up the Gnostic gospels, I simply find it bewildering.

My impression of the Gospel of Thomas is that we walk away from it thinking that Jesus is far more of a magician and less of a human being than we find in the Gospel of John.

It’s a terribly unconvincing portrait of Jesus, and it’s not really a gospel at all—it’s a collection of Jesus’ sayings. For a gospel, you have to have both his sayings and the narrative context.

What is the positive evidence for early dating of the New Testament documents?

There’s a distinct trend now toward an earlier dating for the Gospels. In the last century, it was high scholarly fashion to suggest that these are all very late—the synoptic Gospels maybe after the fall of Jerusalem. The Tübingen School said the Gospel of John was proba-

bly written around a.d. 175, which would remove it from any eyewitness credentials. But then they discovered the Rylands Library Papyrus, which is a fragment of the Gospel of John from around a.d.

105. That proves John was also written within the first century.

Then we have the universal testimony of Eusebius and other early church historians who certainly say that in the latter part of the first century the gospels were all commissioned, all written down.

The other point is this: you have the prophecy fulfillment couplets in Matthew all over the place.

Matthew was addressing his Gospel to the Jewish people, and therefore he’s relying on the Old Testament and showing how, time and again, Jesus is fulfilling the parameters of Old Testament prophecy. Matthew writes that Jesus dragged the cross to Calvary and warned about the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

Do you think wild horses could have prevented Matthew from saying, “Then was fulfilled when our Lord predicted...” and so forth? He’s always doing prophecy fulfillment couplets. The only reason I think he didn’t say that is because Matthew was written before the fall of Jerusalem. A lot of scholars are coming to that agreement today, which was not the case previously.

Before the Gospel of John, do we have a clear witness in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke to Jesus himself claiming to be God or his followers regarding him as divine?

We have Matthew’s statement about Peter at Caesarea Philippi: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” There are many other inscriptions of divinity to Jesus during his earthly ministry, plus things that only God could do in terms of the miracles. Jesus doesn’t blunt any of those statements; as a matter of fact, he rewards Peter and says, “You’re right.” So it’s not just John that brings out Jesus’ divinity; it’s all the way through.

In The Da Vinci Code, what’s Brown’s basis for the suggestion that Jesus was not divine and that he was actually married to Mary Magdalene?

This is a laugh and, by the way, not original. Dan Brown didn’t suddenly invent this idea of Jesus as a happy husband. For the last four or five decades, we’ve had caricatures of Jesus where the Christ disappears and the caricature shows up; they’ve always tried to recreate Jesus in their own image or whatever. Jesus as the happy husband showed up twenty years ago when Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln wrote a book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Quite frankly, Brown gets most of his plot from that book. I’m surprised they haven’t sued. There’s not one scrap of evidence in any document that Jesus married Mary Magdalene—or that he ever got married—or that they had a daughter named Sarah who escaped to France.

Dan Brown speaks of thousands of documents chronicling Jesus’ life and his marriage. The thousands got narrowed down to two: they are the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip. These are very late (probably third century), they’re apocryphal, they’re Gnostic, and they’re riddled with errors and exaggerations. Even in those two gospels, there’s nothing that says Jesus married the woman. As a matter of fact, the context proves he didn’t. One of the quotes Brown uses from the Gospel of Philip is where the disciples ask Jesus, “Lord, why do you prefer Mary Magdalene to us?” If Jesus had been married, he would have said, “She’s my wife, that’s why!” But he didn’t say that. So even in this supposedly great proof-text, there’s nothing to indicate that Jesus got married. As a matter of fact, we can pretty well prove he didn’t because of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul is working on the credentials of his apostleship and says, “Don’t I have the right to have a wife along with me, as the brothers of the Lord do, and the apostles?” If M AY / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N 3 5

Jesus would have been married, Paul would have said, “Don’t I have the right to be married like our Lord and Savior, setting the example?” He didn’t say that.

Why does any of this matter? Why can’t we just go on saying—as The Da Vinci Code claims—that the Gospels are written by mere mortals about a mere mortal. If it works for you, that’s great. If it makes you feel better, if it helps you raise your kids and keeps your marriage together, gives you selfesteem, Jesus is really good for that and I don’t begrudge anybody for following him; but let’s not get into debates or arguments over whether it really happened.

Religion isn’t about history.

Well, Christianity is. This is the big difference between Christianity and all other world religious systems, except for our parent, Judaism.

Those are the only two religious systems totally concerned with history. This is what marks us as different, and this is a tremendous credibility factor in terms of the Old and New Testaments. All the other world religious systems are nebulous in this regard. All the other religious systems have a holy book in which you don’t try to find points of correlation, tangencies;

36 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

you can’t build bridges from the secular into the sacred evidence there, and you don’t want to, you don’t need to. But in Christianity, you have a holy book in the Old and New Testament that is totally embedded in history; it’s part of the warp and woof of history. That could have been very hazardous if that holy book were chock-full of discrepancies and errors. Boldly, you have the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament, and boldly you have the evangelists and the apostles in the New Testament casting this against the background of total fact. The nativity begins with Caesar Augustus. Jesus’ public ministry begins in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This is real and that’s the difference. I don’t really think that Christians celebrate that difference enough. They overlook even things like the geographical proofs that the Scriptures are dealing with reality. The holy books of other world religious systems are very nebulous when it comes to geographical place names and such.

But in the case of the Old and New Testament, 95 percent of the place names have been identified, and some have been dug. This is real!

This is a tremendous difference, a tremendous advantage that Christianity has.

Isn’t this the difference, too, between authentic Christianity of the New Testament and Gnosticism?

The Gnosticism on which The Da Vinci Code rests is itself totally uninterested in what really happened in first-century Palestine.

That’s right. In Gnosticism you have a theology that elevates the reader out of the practical world and leads him into echelons of divine beings and whatever else in their theological maunderings, so they’re really not concerned with fact. That’s the enormous difference and that really gives a lie to their claims.

But what a perfect religion for an American intellectual establishment that would really like not to have messy quarrels over history and just have therapeutic religious pluralism. We seem to get that if we go to the Gnostic texts instead of the New Testament.

That’s right, and there’s a tremendous difference there. I realize that what I’ve said about the superior credibility claims of the Bible is very politically incorrect today. All religions have their truth—what makes Christianity any different?

I’ll tell you what makes it different: We’re dealing with fact here and not with fantasy or fiction.

REFORMATION RESOURCES tools for

re for mation pa ce se tter s

Readings on the Canon The Canon of the New Testament

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

By Bruce Metzger Oxford University Press, 1997 This important work offers the complete history of the origin, development, and significance of the Christian canon in early church history.

By Craig L. Blomberg InterVarsity Press, 2008 A great apologetic resource for handling the skeptical criticisms of nineteenthand twentieth-century “higher critics.”

The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986

An Introduction to the New Testament D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo Zondervan, 2005 This introduction provides a wealth of information regarding authorship, dating, sources, purposes, and the original audiences of every book of the New Testament.

Carson and Moo are leaders among evangelical scholars.

By Stephen Neill and Tom Wright Oxford University Press, 1988 (2nd edition) Have you ever heard of the Codex Alexandrinus, the Griesbach Hypothesis, or the community of Essenes at Qumran? This is a classic seminary textbook that provides the history of how scholars and “higher critics” have explored the Bible in modern times.

SEE ALSO: The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins by Larry Hurtado (Eerdmans,

Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts by James Garlow and

2006).

Peter Jones (Victor, 2004).

Gnosis: The History and Nature of Gnosticism

by Kurt Rudolph (T&T Clark, 1998).

M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

REVIEWS w h a t ’ s

b e i n g

r e a d

A Rocky But Rewarding Road

H

aving been reared in the home of a Baptist minister, I was exposed to the

of the trials that many who have not come from a Reformed backgospel on a daily basis. My father and our church were devout in their ground face in life, specifically as they better understand the gospel beliefs and faithful to expository preaching. The Word of God was central. and are then compelled to share its truths and merit. Over and again, As I have grown and one of the themes that emerged within the pages of this matured in my faith, important book was that of trial. It is clear that each conhowever, I have come tributor has been tested as a result of his subsequent calling to realize exactly what into Reformed Christianity. As Michael Leach suggested the men of Glory Road: when referring to his ministry of preaching and teaching The Journeys of 10 AfricanReformed Christianity, “The ministerial road traveled…has Americans into Reformed been rocky but rewarding, extremely challenging, but Christianity have discovimmensely consoling; after all, we are not living in times ered. I was taught a characterized by a massive outpouring or fervent desire to brand of evangelicalism hear or grasp life-changing truth.” Whether black, white, that was fervent and Asian, or Latino, this is certainly the case for those seeking honest, albeit confused. to impact the world through the truth of the gospel.

I am a product of an Throughout each chapter, it was clear that all of these Arminian-Calvinistic African-American men lost standing within their own comhybrid. I was taught munities, lost personal friendships, had their commitment to that I was indeed saved racial ideals and identity questioned, and were castigated for by grace, but personal their Reformed beliefs. This is both heartbreaking and underpiety certainly shared standable for one who grew up in white suburban evangelcenter stage. I was icalism and who has also had conversations with those who therefore often left connow question my faith, my standing with God, and even my Glory Road: fused, worried I was eternal salvation. No matter what race or ethnicity, many The Journeys of 10 not saved and conwho have found truth in Reformed Christianity understand African-Americans into stantly fearing being what it means to lose face in today’s evangelical Christian cirReformed Christianity left behind during the cles. The stories in Glory Road, however, reassure and provide Edited by Anthony Carter r a p t u r e .

S a l v a t i o n hope. I have not faced the level of scrutiny and scorn these Crossway Books, 2009 seemed real but just out men faced as they fervently sought the truth of the gospel; 192 pages (paperback), $15.99 of reach. For the men yet they pressed on, knowing that to which they were called. of Glory Road, their stories were often similar.

In so sharing their personal stories, the authors also Anthony Carter and the other authors of Glory Road touched upon multiple themes one would expect when spoke to me through their struggles to understand the reading of transformation through a better understanding of gospel, through their search for truth, and, ultimately, by who Christ is, what he has done throughout history, and seeing how God sought each of them, calling them, and what a systematic Reformed theology teaches: Christology, transforming their hearts and minds through the study of historical Christianity, sovereignty, justification, sanctificathe Word and through salvation by grace alone, through tion, grace, and election. The underlying foundations and faith alone, in Christ alone. This book is a compilation of doctrines were stated over and again, solidifying the essence individuals’ stories, all of which affirm that indeed it is God of what believers of Reformed Christianity hold to and upon who reaches down to us, who has sought us and chosen us which they insist. for his purposes—to bring him glory, honor, and praise.

For me, as one who has come from a different Christian Glory Road, as the subtitle suggests, chronicles the journey theology, the road to Reformed Christianity has at times, as of ten African-Americans to the heart of the gospel. Each for the authors of Glory Road, been confusing. While my love contributor, in his own way, is an example of the redeemfor my father will never waver, discovering a theological pering grace and love of Jesus Christ. Each is also an example spective different from what he taught me has caused some

3 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

pain, but in the end has created within me a deeper love and passion for Christ. As a result, I was able to relate to the authors and many of their personal experiences.

In the afterword, Anthony Carter touches upon three final themes to which each of the authors is unyielding. Each is a black man, an identifier both “distinct, if at times bitter.”

Each is Reformed in his theology, providing an even more important identifier that “transcends…skin and ethnicity.”

Finally, each is a Christian, providing the most important identifier of all: “We are first and last children of God.” Reviewing this book has been rewarding and daunting.

As a white man, I can never know what each of the authors has experienced in life and through his journey into Reformed Christianity. I wish to do their words justice and provide a sense of what it has meant to choose the road less traveled, of what it means to turn away from modern culture, and what it means to seek to impact culture. As one who loves theology but is not a theologian, reading and writing this review has been a privilege.

This is a readable and enjoyable book, one I recommend to all—no matter your race or ethnicity—who seek to better understand what it means that God has reached down and saved us. While each of us travels a different road to glory, at times filled with trials, the journey is sweet when we are inspired and savor the glory of the one true God.

Timothy P. Wiens (Ph.D. in Education, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota) is headmaster of Boston Trinity Academy in Dorchester, Massachusetts.

A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel

By John Colquhoun (1748–1827) Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2009 320 pages (hardcover), $17.36 If not familiar with law and gospel, one might identify the former with something like People’s Court and the latter with a smiling evangelist saying, “God loves you.” Fortunately, the nature of the relationship between law and gospel as found in Reformed theology is precisely the subject of John Colquhoun’s (pronounced “ka-hoon”) recently republished A Treatise on The Law and the Gospel, which—in the humble opinion of this reviewer—might be the most important book that both pastors and laypersons can put on their shelves.

Short Notice Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions

By David VanDrunen Crossway Books, 2009 256 pages (paperback), $19.99 Chances are if you are reading this you were born once. Chances are also high that if you are reading this you will someday die. In the period of time between these two major events, you will most likely face many questions concerning the beginning and end of the lives of your children, your parents, or even yourself. How is a Christian to face the myriad of options available to those bearing children or dealing with a dying loved one?

In this volume, Dr. David VanDrunen helps Christians build a wise foundation from which bioethical decisions can be made. Notice I said he “builds a wise foundation” and not “gives us answers.” Because the situations facing individuals are as varied as the number of people, there is no volume that can give an answer to the precise situation one is facing in a particular moment.

What VanDrunen does so well in Bioethics and the Christian Life is to involve the reader in thinking about the general bioethical options available, grounding the decisions that need to be made on Scripture and Christian doctrine.

This book is divided into three helpful parts. Part one is the “Foundation of Bioethics,” which includes very useful chapters on “Theological Doctrines” and another on “Christian Virtues.” These two chapters alone are worth the price of admission for Christians who want a concise presentation of important doctrines, such as divine providence, the image of God in man, suffering, and Christian virtues including faith, hope, and courage.

Having a robust understanding of even basic theological categories is immensely helpful in making bioethical choices, and VanDrunen constantly refers back to these doctrines throughout the book.

Parts two and three are why you would consider reading this book in the first place as they undertake beginning-of-life and then end-of-life situations, respectively.

Again, a foundation is being built for the Christian, and the relevant information is masterfully conveyed in layperson’s terms so that Christians can understand what is really going on and what the options are when they (continued on page 41) M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

Colquhoun spends the first chapter unpacking God’s law as it is written on the hearts of all people in creation, how this law was then given under the form of a covenant of works to Adam, and finally how the law comes as a rule of life in the hand of Christ, the mediator to all true believers.

The first chapter lays the foundation of what is then unpacked in the following four chapters, which deal with the law. Without wanting to give a detailed chapter-bychapter summary, which Joel Beeke provides in the new introduction of this book, I will comment on some of the highlights.

The strength of this book is how Colquhoun connects and discerns his ideas. His sentences are tight and exacting. For instance, in distinguishing how God’s natural law and his positive law derive authority, he writes: “The former are ‘holy, just and good,’ and therefore are commanded, the latter are commanded, and are therefore ‘holy, just, and good.’”

These types of quotes are characteristic of the book, which is why my copy is marked up quite severely with underlines, highlights, and marginalia.

Of particular note in the first four chapters of the book is Colquhoun’s treatment of the law as put forth at Mount Sinai to the Israelites. This has long been an area of disagreement among many in the Reformed community.

Colquhoun’s voice on this issue is a most useful one, and his contribution should not be overlooked. The first four chapters conclude by discussing the properties and principles of the moral law. Colquhoun shows how the law comes to unbelievers to drive them to the gospel.

The gospel then is defined broadly by Colquhoun as the whole of divine truth, which consists of both law and gospel and is thus gospel in a full sense. Yet, Colquhoun is quick to provide the more narrow definition of the gospel as “good news, glad tidings, or a joyful message.” Strictly speaking, the gospel in its narrow definition is, as Dr. J. Gresham Machen put it so well, “a piece of news.” Colquhoun then takes pains to show that the gospel is not “repent and believe,” which is rather the law in subservience to the gospel. Rather, the gospel is comprised of external promises. The gospel then commands nothing, says Colquhoun, “but it declares to us what God in Christ as a God of grace has done, and what He promises to do for us and in us and by us.”

Colquhoun next moves to distinguish between law and gospel in chapters 5, 6, and 7 and then turns around to show their intimate relationship in chapters 8 and 9. The gospel is not the law, nor is the law gospel, but gospel and law are connected to each other. As only Colquhoun writes, “By the harmony of the law and the gospel is meant their mutual subservience to one another, or their admirable fitness for securing and advancing the honor of each other in subordination to the glory of God.” The law and the gospel harmonize because “the law, as a covenant of works and a rule of life, demands nothing of sinners but what is offered and promised in the gospel; and in the gospel everything freely promised and offered to them is that which the law, in any of its forms, requires.”

4 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

This reviewer did find Colquhoun’s discussion about the necessity of good works for salvation (not justification) a little too brief, particularly in how the external form of good works can be shared between believers and nonbelievers even though the internal manner and motive is different.

Instead of an extended discussion on that matter, however, Colquhoun does have a useful discourse on how to understand the role of rewards in heaven (which he mentions in several chapters). In the opinion of this reviewer, this is an area needing development in Reformed theology and Colquhoun’s treatment was a welcome surprise.

In conclusion, this book is well worth the money and also worth a careful read. Although Colquhoun states in the introduction that he is prone to repeat himself, this reviewer found him doing so very purposefully. This serves the reader in that Colquhoun expresses the same thought in a variety of ways before a chapter is over. This displays Colquhoun’s mastery of the topic and serves to make one consider this book as a masterpiece on the law and gospel.

Austin Britton (M.Div., Westminster Seminary California) is a licensed preacher in the Presbyterian Church of America.

POINT OF CONTACT: BOOKS YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE READING The Twilight Saga Collection

By Stephanie Meyer Little, Brown and Company, 2008 Complete set of four books: 2,560 pages (hardcover), $40.00

If you have been to the movies, visited your local bookstore, or scanned the tabloids at the supermarket within the past four years, then you have probably heard something about Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight books. The film adaptations have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, and the books remain on best-seller lists nearly two years after the finale was published. If your neighbors have not read Twilight, then their teenage daughters almost certainly have.

Though most of the books’ central characters are vampires, the genre of the book is more Young Adult romance than vampire novel. The illicit sensuality, however, that often dominates both romance and vampire genres is noticeably absent from this series. Instead, themes of abstinence, self-control, and fidelity within marriage abound. But before we get into central themes, here are basic plot summaries.

Twilight. The heroine Bella Swan has just moved to the perpetually overcast Forks, Washington. At the local high school, she meets and falls deeply in love with the pale, handsome Edward Cullen. It turns out he’s a hundredyear-old vampire who is desperately thirsting for her blood.

Fortunately, Edward and his vampire “family” have determined to be “vegetarians” who live only on animal blood.

Unfortunately, a less noble vampire, James, comes into town and decides to have Bella for lunch. Yet the Cullens save the day and rescue Bella.

New Moon. With an heir of chivalry that fits his true age, Edward decides that he and his family are too dangerous to remain around Bella. She goes catatonic for several months when Edward leaves. A Native American teen, Jacob Black, befriends Bella and helps her to recover. Oddly enough, Jacob also has a secret. He (and some of his tribe) are becoming werewolves in response to recent vampire activity. Apparently James’s mate, Victoria, is lurking nearby for revenge on Bella. Meanwhile, Edward hears a false report that Bella has committed suicide, and so he tries to persuade the Volturi, a vicious and powerful sect of Italian vampires, to end his misery. This time Bella saves the day, racing to Italy in time to rescue Edward. However, they only escape the clutches of the Volturi because Edward agrees to turn Bella into a vampire.

Eclipse. Bella is conflicted—Jacob or Edward? Edward has agreed to make her a vampire only on the condition that she marry him first. Jacob, however, has no such conditions and is “better” for her. But Bella has more immediate problems—Victoria is still out for revenge and has raised a small army of vampires to destroy her. In a climactic finish, Edward saves the damsel, kills the bad guys, and persuades Bella to marry him (though she loves Jacob, too). Jacob runs off into Canada in lupine fury.

Breaking Dawn. A lovely wedding, a better honeymoon, and the conception of a vampire-human baby whose birth nearly kills Bella. Edward saves her by transforming her into a vampire. Unfortunately, the Volturi are back to remove this “unnatural” child from the happy immortal couple. The Cullens assemble an international cast of vampire friends to defend the child and testify that she is harmless. In a final showdown, the Volturi begin to attack, but at the last moment another vampire-human arrives on the scene to testify for the child.

Everybody literally lives happily and forever after. The End. What is so appealing about this blood-sucking teen drama? To put it simply: self-sacrifice. The Twilight series really is founded upon the power of self-sacrificial love.

Yes, Edward Cullen is nearly god-like in his power—incredibly strong, impossibly fast, nearly indestructible, and perpetually beautiful. Yet his truest power is his ability to

(continued from page 39) might not get the full story from their caregivers.

This book is written for ordinary Christians sitting in the pews and not necessarily for Christian bioethicists or doctors, which is reflected in the style of VanDrunen’s writing. Despite initial impressions of a book on this subject matter, it is very easy reading and the author intentionally did not include footnotes or citations of an academic variety. This truly is a book any Christian can and, I suggest, should read given the climate in which we are living in the twenty-first century.

Mark Vander Pol (M.Div., Westminster Seminary California) is the webmaster for White Horse Inn and is a candidate for the ministry in the United Reformed Churches of North America.

Join the Conversation!

Have you ever considered writing for Modern Reformation?

Here’s your chance! We’re continuing these departments in 2010 and we want your words to be featured in them.

“Open Exchange”: A forum for reader response. If you’ve ever read an article printed in our pages and thought that something else needed to be added, this is the place for your contribution.

“Ex Auditu”: Examples of Christ-centered sermons. Christ-centered preaching is sadly rare in all our circles. Have you heard or preached a good sermon? Send in the transcript to give others a model to follow.

“Preaching from the Choir”: Perspectives on music in the church. Beyond the old “worship wars,” we want to give people a way to think about the music we sing in formal worship contexts and in our private worship. Draw attention to the resources that matter.

“Family Matters”: Resources for home.

Catechism resources, ways of teaching theology to children, help with holiday themes: this is the place to direct others to resources you’ve found helpful in your efforts to be faithful at home.

“Borrowed Capital”: Witnessing to Christ in our age. Where do you start in your witness for Christ? How do apologetics play a role in your evangelism? Got a story or a helpful idea? Share it with others in this space.

“Common Grace”: God’s truth in art and culture. God gives gifts to both believer and unbeliever. How do we see those gifts expressed in the art and culture surrounding the church? In this space, we want to hear from artists and cultural observers looking for glimpses of grace in life.

Intrigued? Ready to write? Send your 850-word essay (Ex Auditu sermons can be longer) to editor@modernreformation.org.

Be sure to tell us in which department you think your essay belongs and send all your contact information. If we decide to run your work, we’ll extend your subscription by one year.

M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

control himself for the sake of his beloved Bella.

Meyer upholds chastity and fidelity as fundamental virtues of her books. Though the very essence of Bella’s blood creates burning thirst within Edward (a thirst that thinly veils sexual desire), he always restrains himself.

Instead, he watches over her as she sleeps, protects her from all danger, and (inexplicably) finds her to be the most beautiful and fascinating woman he has met in a hundred years. One gets the sense that Meyer is writing a rather heavy-handed vicarious fantasy both for herself and for every teenage girl. Nevertheless, the virtue is real.

Moreover, Edward has learned self-control from his “family,” a group of genetically unrelated vampires who have chosen to live together and deny themselves. Because they drink the blood of wild animals instead of regular people, their eyes have turned from vicious red into a softer gold. In fact, Carlyle, the father of this family, is so disciplined around the scent of blood that he works as an ER doctor. And just to reinforce the chastity theme, every member of this family is paired off and married, except (conveniently) for Edward. As one outsider vampire observes, “I have witnessed the bonds within this family—I say family and not coven. These strange golden-eyed ones deny their very natures. But in return have they found something worth even more, perhaps, than mere gratification of desire?”

(Breaking Dawn, 737).

Alongside these Judeo-Christian values, however, Meyer also slips in some decidedly Mormon theology. It is no coincidence that the happy ending of the series concludes not just with marriage but with an eternal marriage, not just with a child but with an immortal child. This is not far from the Mormon vision of eternity with God—marriage, sex, and procreation are the fastest way to get there.

Another important factor in the Mormon schema of eternal reward is compliance with a morally good life. For example, Edward is conflicted about turning Bella into a vampire because he is certain that all vampires are damned, that they are creatures without souls by their very nature.

Of course, Bella and the rest of his family insist that this is nonsense, that Edward is far too good and kind and self-giving to be damned. This example perfectly demonstrates the Mormon (and Pelagian) view that human conscience and free will are unfallen and sufficient for salvation. In fact, some branches of Mormon doctrine go further than this, asserting that the Fall was good because it gave Adam and Eve the opportunity to be married and procreate as a result.

Anything sound familiar?

Apart from the subtle Mormon insertions, Meyer’s books certainly deserve critique for stylistic quality (or lack thereof). Yes, Meyer has written a highly moral and imaginative tale with interesting characters and page-turning plots. But this does not mean that her characters are not one-dimensional or that her plots are not predictable. Again and again the story descends into navel-gazing, stream-ofconsciousness teen angst (which no doubt suits the intended audience). Moreover, much of the imaginative detail is either borrowed (via Anne Rice) or overused. To quote my 4 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

wife, “If I have to read about how Edward’s chest looks like it was carved out of marble one more time, I’m going to retch.”

In conclusion, Twilight is an excellent entry point for discussing any number of issues with your neighbor or your neighbor’s teenager. Given the mediocre quality of the writing, it is probably not worth your time to do more than skim the first novel (although I freely admit that I was hooked and read all of them). Even if you have time only to see one of the movies, it is worth the effort. Twilight is too much of a cultural phenomenon for the Christian not to engage with it on some level.

Jordan Easley is an M.Div. student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

“I

’d had more than my fair share of near-death experiences; it wasn’t something you ever

really got used to.

“It seemed oddly inevitable, though, facing death again. Like I really was marked for disaster. I’d escaped time and time again, but it kept coming back for me. Still, this time was so different from the others. You could run from someone you feared, you could try to fight someone you hated. All my reactions were geared toward those kinds of killers—the monsters, the enemies. When you loved the one who was killing you, it left you no options. How could you run, how could you fight, when doing so would hurt that beloved one? If your life was all you had to give your beloved, how could you not give it? If it was someone you truly loved?”

—Stephanie Meyer, Breaking Dawn

Ex Auditu (continued from page 5) to have to be eternally powerful. Actually, he’s going to have to be God. He’s going to have to be man to be my substitute, to stand in for me, and he’s going to have to be God. Now for good people we might die. We might dare to die for someone who is really good. There was just one person who fits this profile, who was up to the task, who was God and who was man, and in his humanity, bore the weight of God’s wrath against sin by the power of his divinity because he was God; and God was able to lay not only my sins but yours too on him, and he was able to bear up under the weight.

Like I said, you and I might get so fanatical about someone, love them so much, we would take a bullet for them.

But the amazing thing about the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ—and that’s the One we’re talking about, isn’t it?—is that God demonstrates his love for us. Romans 5:6 says that Christ dies not for good people but for the ungodly. He knew no sin. But God, by laying our iniquities on him, made him sin. And here’s the gospel for us, for all who believe.

Now this is so amazing that when Isaiah the prophet scans the horizon for all who might believe in what he is saying, he begins in Isaiah 53 by asking, “Who has believed our report?” This version says, “Who has believed what they have heard from us?” Who believes this?

I stand here today and the family sits here today with the unspeakable comfort of knowing that Jim, a month before he died, believed this report. The amazing grace of our God is that in believing this report, when our brother left this life, he stepped into and was welcomed into eternal glory. First Peter 3:18 says that Christ died for sins once for all for the unrighteous. He was righteous for the unrighteous—that’s Jim. Kind of strange to hear at a funeral, isn’t it? What?

You’re telling me Jim was not a good person? Nope. And I got more: neither are you. And there’s even more—which is even more amazing: neither am I. Not one of us. The righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. It is amazing that this report was an incredible comfort to Jim. If I or anyone else had come to him and said, “You know, Jim, you’ve been a pretty good person, and I am sure that your good outweighs your bad,” that would have only sown the most pernicious of all doubts in his soul.

About that word “eulogy,” we use it wrong. It’s directly from the Bible, a Greek word that morphed into Latin, and we get it in English almost exactly as it was in the Greek: “eulogy—to speak well of.” But in the Bible it does not mean to speak well of the person. It’s used this way, as it’s rooted in the Hebrew understanding of barach: blessing. It is God speaking well of us. What? How can God speak well of us? When Christ bears our sins on the cross, Beloved, he takes them away so that a holy God can turn his face toward us and anyone who comes into his presence believing, even if it’s a month before he dies. God can speak well of him because of what Christ did; it’s just as if he had never sinned, and it’s just as if he had always obeyed God. In late October Jim believed and is now in heaven with

his Savior, but this we do not see. This is not in our eyesight.

We’re in the same position this moment, in the same state that Abraham was when God says, “I’m going to allow you and Sarah to have a son,” and Abraham and Sarah laugh.

You see, not only were they well past childbearing age, but Sarah had been barren from the moment Abraham married her. They didn’t see it, but the record shows in Genesis 15 that Abraham believed God. All things around us today are in the same opposition to the promise of God. He promises immortality, new life in Christ. We see death. He declares that we are just, righteous in Christ, and we see that we’re covered with sins. The word of the Lord comes to us and testifies that he is kind and loving to us, favorable toward us; and we feel the heavy weight of his judgments and his wrath against our sins, which make us fall down on our faces and beat our breasts and ask God to have mercy on us. What’s to be done? Well, we have to close our eyes. We have to refuse to believe the testimony of the grave that shouts at us, “This is it! They’re dead, they’re buried! End of story!” We must believe.

My prayer this day is that if any of you have never trusted in Christ, the opportunity is here, as it was there by the grace of God for Jim that day. He believed the report of Isaiah.

Christ was pierced for my transgressions. He took the weight of God’s anger against my sin away. He has forgiven my sins.

That will be, as it is this moment for Jim, your eternal comfort. Indeed, Isaiah, indeed. Who has believed our report?

Rev. Carl A. Heuss, Sr., is pastor of Coram Deo Reformation Church in Littleton, Colorado. This sermon was preached at a memorial service in December 2009.

Modern Reformation invites you to submit a book review for publication in an upcoming issue. Thoughtful Christians should examine the most important books of the day, and we want you to evaluate books both good and bad from your reformational perspective.

Submit your review of 1,000 words or less in an e-mail to reviews@modernreformation.org.

Please reference the guidelines at www.modernreformation.org/submissions.

M A Y / J U N E 2 0 1 0 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

FINAL THOUGHTS f r o m

t h e

d e s k

o f

t h e

e d i t o r - i n - c h i e f

“Above All Earthly Pow’rs”

I

t is possible to have a high view of Scripture in theory while yielding in actual practice

some younger evangelical theologians that explicitly to other authorities. Ever since the temptation in the garden, Satan has tried to under- reject sola Scriptura in favor of views that are indistinmine our confidence in God’s Word not only by subtraction or obvious denials but also guishable from the arguments of Rome. We are by addition. While liberals typically allow trends in high cultold that the community created the Scriptures and thereture to stand in criticism of Scripture, conservatives often folfore is included in the circle of “inspiration” along with the low the fashions of popular culture. biblical texts. God’s external Word, which comes to us from There is a great temptation to say whatever we want to outside of ourselves, is reduced to the inner word of the say or do whatever we want to do (in worship, outreach, believer or the community. But this can only mean that saland discipleship) and claim God’s authority for it. Reformed vation comes from us, not from the Lord. Welling up within Christians believe that when it comes to the doctrine, worus, this word that liberates and rules us is merely our own ship, and daily life of believers, the church not only cannot reflection on our pious experience. There is no hope in this require anything opposed by Scripture but anything not line of thinking. We need to be pulled out of ourselves, eyes taught in Scripture. Captive to this Word, we are liberated and ears raised to heaven, as our Sovereign Lord judges, justifies, and renews us. Only when the Word of God rescues from all other words as divinely authoritative. us from our self-talk and spin are we truly freed from the We are in great need today of recovering the sound bondage that leads to death.

Reformation principle that no church, pastor, or fellow believer is authorized to require anything for our faith or practice that is not delivered to us by God in his Word.

Ultimate authority always resides outside the self and even Michael Horton is editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation. outside the church, as both are always hearers of the Word and receivers of its judgment and justification. The church is commissioned to deliver this Word (a ministerial office), not to possess or rule over it (a magisterial office). Thus, the authority is always transcendent. Even when it comes near us, it is never our own word that we hear (Rom. 10:6–13, 17).

As we have seen in this issue, the sufficiency of Scripture is being undermined unwittingly even in circles committed t is only ours to see the victory of Christ on formally to a high doctrine of the Bible. David Wells among others has warned us of the growing subordination of bibthe Cross being realized afresh in the actual lical teaching to pragmatism, consumerism, marketing, managerial principles, pop psychology, and other cultural circumstances of our time. That will happen when the authorities.

When will we recognize that God’s Word—“above all Church humbles itself afresh, seeks the power and earthly pow’rs”—is the only power of God unto salvation, as well as unto proper worship, mission, and discipleship? cleansing of God, and asks to have its vision renewed For example, in the Great Commission Jesus clearly institutes the ministry of proclaiming the gospel, baptizing, and of the victory of Christ and to see, once again, his teaching as the means of making disciples. Nevertheless, this greatness. So may it be!” ministry of Word and Sacrament, much less the order and discipline of the New Testament, is often marginalized in favor of a host of principles, programs, methods, and move—David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs ments we think will make our mission more relevant in the contemporary world.

And now we are seeing the growth of opinions among

“I

4 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G