Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 18

Gordon Clark’s view of Romans 1:20

Perhaps the most commonly referenced verse in support of the cosmological argument for the existence of God is Romans 1:20,

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Since, however, Gordon Clark rejected the cosmological argument it might be of some value knowing how he understood Romans 1:20. Fortunately, he wrote about this question in many places.

That Clark did not view Romans 1:20 as supporting the cosmological argument is evident in such places as his article on “The Existence of God” in Encyclopedia of Christianity:

“In spite of the Roman Catholic claim that Paul the apostle put his stamp of approval on Aristotle and Aquinas in Romans 1:19-20, it is clear that the Bible offers no argument to prove God’s existence. The heavens indeed display the glory of God; but a modern scientist who had no prior conviction of God could see there only a display of nuclear energy.”

He repeats much the same in God’s Hammer, pp. 87-88:

“Thomas Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Church hold, not merely that God can be known in nature, but that the existence of God can irrefragably be demonstrated, without any a priori equipment, from the data of sensory perception. To make good this claim, Thomas, following the lead of Aristotle, worked out an amazingly intricate system of philosophy. This tremendous achievement merits professional and meticulous examination. … In another volume (Thales to Dewey, pp. 274-78), I have tried to show that technical analysis can indicate several points (e.g., the concepts of potentiality and motion, the circular argument on infinite regress, the theory of analogy) at which the chain of Thomas’s syllogisms breaks down. Surely it is extreme to claim, as the Thomists do, that the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:20 guarantees the validity of the complete argument.”

In the same volume, p. 92, Clark notes,

“Though dim and restricted, this natural knowledge of God is not to be denied. Romans 1:20 may not guarantee the validity of the theistic proofs, but it plainly asserts some knowledge of God derived from ‘the things that are made.'”

Finally, in an unpublished paper titled “Nooumena Kathoratai” he is more explicit about what this “some knowledge” is:

“One may note that nobody can recognize a flower as God’s handiwork, unless he has a prior knowledge of God. As Calvin said, the knowledge of God is the first knowledge a person has. It is innate; not derived from experience.”

We might summarize Clark’s view of Romans 1:20 by saying that it is not that we know of God because we see His power in the universe, but that because we already know God innately we understand the power in the universe to be His.

Is there a Dabney – d’Aubigné connection?

Was Robert Lewis Dabney a descendant of the Huguenot Théodore-Agrippa d’Aubigné?

I had once heard that the surname “Dabney” of Robert Lewis Dabney (1820 – 1898), a leading American Southern Presbyterian pastor and theologian, came from the Huguenot family d’Aubigné. That is, “Dabney” would be an Anglicized version of “d’Aubigné.”

One of the most well-known of the d’Aubigné’s might be Jean-Henri Merle d’Aubigné (1794 – 1872), a Swiss theologian and author of The History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. But, since Robert Lewis Dabney and Jean-Henri Merle d’Aubigné were contemporaries, and since the Dabney family had been in America for generations, these two men are not, at least, closely related.

The other well-known d’Aubigné, and an actual Huguenot, is Théodore-Agrippa d’Aubigné (1552 – 1630). There is debate whether Théodore-Agrippa is an ancestor of Robert Lewis Dabney.

What is known is that Robert Lewis Dabney had the following ancestors in America, only the earliest of whom might have been a “d’Aubigné”:

– father Charles William Dabney (1786 – 1833)

– grandfather Samuel Dabney (1755 – 1793)

– great-grandfather William Dabney (1708 – 1772)

– great-great-grandfather George Dabney (1660 – 1731)

– great-great-great grandfather Cornelius Dabney

The debate is over of whether Cornelius came from the English “D’Albini” family or the Huguenot family “d’Aubigné.” If the Huguenot theory is correct then Cornelius would be the son of Constant d’Aubigné (1609 – ?) who was the son of the French Huguenot Théodore-Agrippa d’Aubigné (1552 – 1630).

But at least one researcher who has looked into this concludes:

“My own belief at this time, based on the reading I have done, is that the Virginia Dabneys were descended from an established English family, which had been resident in England probably as far back as the Norman conquest, and that the Huguenot connection is a legend.” –  http://hylbom.com/family/paternal-lines/paternal-cl-to-du/dabney-3046/

While Robert Lewis Dabney does not appear to be a descedant of the Huguenot, the author of The History of the Reformation, Jean-Henri Merle d’Aubigné is:

– father Aimé Robert Merle d’Aubigné (1755 – )

– grandmother Elisabeth d’Aubigné (1720 – 1780)

– great-grandfather Georges Louis II d’Aubigné (1680 – 1732)

– great-great grandfather Samuel d’Aubigné (1638 – 1710)

– great-great-great grandfather Nathan d’Aubigné (1601 – 1669)

– great-great-great-great grandfather Théodore-Agrippa d’Aubigné (1552 – 1630)

Review of The People’s History of Presbyterianism by Robert P. Kerr

The People’s History of Presbyterianism in All Ages by Robert P. Kerr, Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1888, Fourth Edition 1894, 284 pp.

[A short bio of the author, Robert Pollock Kerr (1850-1923) can be found in History of William Jewel College: Liberty, Clay Country, Missouri, 1893,  p. 155 – 157. From this it is seen that Kerr was a Presbyterian minister of one of the largest churches in Virginia and the author of at least seven books.]

The People’s History of Presbyterianism is a general overview of Presbyterian Church history for the non-specialist; for the people in the pews.

Despite this being presumptively a book on Presbyterian history, Kerr evidently has a great desire for the unity of all the various Christian denominations. He writes, “We should love one another, show reciprocal respect, and by the exchange of pulpits, by intercommunion, by co-operation in worship and work, recognize each other’s full membership in the kingdom of Christ.” (p. 10) While this would have been a difficult proposition to support in 1888, it is absurd today. The distance that many denominations have gone away from Biblical Christianity makes unity with one of them nothing less than unity with the devil.

The book notes various groups in Christian history who have held the presbyterian style of church government of rule by multiple elders. The earliest groups mentioned are the Waldenses and the Culdees. Concluding his chapter on the latter, Kerr writes, “God has never left himself without a witness from the days of Adam, nor ever will, till shall be no more.” (p. 54) Here Kerr tries to connect the dots to show a chain of presbyterianism in church history, much like the “trail of blood” of Baptist successionism. But as Kerr continues on to Augustine, Hus, and Luther it seems he is no longer set to defend primarily the practice of presbyterian church government but has largely switched to showing the continuity of belief in the doctrines of salvation against Pelagius and Rome. When Kerr gets to Zwingli he briefly returns to “the great Presbyterian principle of government” but then continues with a more general history of Presbyterian churches themselves.

At the time of Kerr’s writing the Presbyterian churches worldwide were in their ascendency and thus he writes with much optimism. The modernism / liberalism that so wreaked havoc on the churches in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is not yet noted in this book. He could then write of the Reformed Church in America, “[it] is second to no other member of the great Presbyterian or Reformed Confederation in soundness of doctrine and in evangelical tone.” (p. 181)

Kerr lived through the American Civil War; what he calls “the great War of Secession.” (p. 196) He notes the relevance of both the issues of states rights and slavery in the lead up to the war. Not strongly giving his own opinions however, he largely quotes from Northern and Southern general assembly minutes from the era. Continuing his overall ecumenical spirit, he hopes for reunion of the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Churches. (p. 226) This would only happen ninety-five years later, when in 1983 the PCUSA and PCUS merged.

After including a section on the demographics of both Protestant and Catholic churches Kerr asks “will it ever be possible for the seven millions of Roman Catholics in this land to overcome the remaining fifty millions, and subvert the government, or destroy our civil and religious liberties?” He answers, “The hierarchy of Rome, unless they have radically changed,—and their motto is, “Semper idem,” always the same—would do it if they could; but they cannot.” (p.232)

But while definitely opposed to Rome, Kerr concludes with his refrain of support for unity among evangelicals. He writes, “[The Presbyterian Church] acknowledges all God’s people as brothers, and all evangelical churches as equals, inviting their ministers into its pulpits, receiving them into our ministry without reordination, and welcoming their members to a communion table which it claims not as its own.” Though some of this statement may be true, with the two statements about ministers I must ask “Which Presbyterian church is he talking about?”

 

Review of “Attack on Everest” by Hugh Ruttledge

Attack on Everest by Hugh Ruttledge, New York: Robert M. McBride & Company, 1935, 339 pages.

Hugh Ruttledge’s Attack on Everest is an account of the 1933 British expedition to Mt. Everest, only the fourth ever expedition to the world’s tallest mountain. Those knowledgeable about the history of climbing will realize that this books precedes by two decades the first successful ascent of the Everest by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay in 1953. Naturally then, Attack on Everest, tells of an expedition which ultimately did not succeed in conquering the mountain.

The 1933 expedition benefitted from the knowledge gained of previous expeditions. The British had mounted a reconnaissance expedition in 1921 and had attempted the peak in 1922 and again in 1924.

The expeditions previous to 1933 were deadly. While the 1922 expedition ended with the deaths of seven porters in an avalanche, the 1924 expedition famously took the lives of George Mallory and Andrew Irvine on their summit attempt. Even the reconnaissance in 1921 saw the death of Alexander Kellas who died of a heart attack in Tibet on his way to the expedition.

Ruttledge,who was himself the leader of the 1933 expedition, details the preparations made for the expedition. He notes a variety of tents used including a “good bell-tent made by the Muir Mills of Cawnpore” designed to hold fourteen men but used by twenty-one Sherpas lying in like sardines. Ruttledge notes “the Sherpa likes company and warmth and despises ventilation.” (p. 52) Of boots he tells us that a Mr. Lawrie of Burnley “devised a boot having a sole of two thicknesses of stout leather, with an intervening layer of asbestos sheeting.” (p. 53) They brought “a light bridge ladder made by the McGruer Hollow Spar Company of Gosport” for crossing over crevasses but never found use for them despite the ladder being “a most ingenious contrivance.” (p. 56-57) They also brought 4,000 ft of specialty rope, and for oxygen “a highly efficient apparatus” that weighed “only 12 3/4 lbs.” (p. 58) For food, a “high-altitude ration was put together.” It included “a liberal provision of Truda’s toffee, Kendal mint, maple sugar, tinned and preserved fruits, jams, tinned cafe au last, Ovaltine, cocoa, Bourn-vita, Messrs. Huntley and Palmer’s biscuits and Brand’s essences.” (p. 60) Ruttledge also notes that “Inventors were much stimulated by the preparations. One gentlemen offers to lay a system of gas piping up the mountain for the delivery of oxygen at the high camps.” (p. 62-63)

As a boxing fan, I appreciated Ruttledge’s reference to “Signor Carnera,” (p. 74) — that is the world heavyweight champion at the time, Primo Carnera, a 6 ft 6 in giant from Italy.

Getting to the base of Everest was itself quite the challenge in those years. Among the events that transpired on that journey was that one of the members of the expedition was bitten by a Tibetan Mastiff, one of the largest breeds of dog in the world. (p. 110)

Once on Everest the expedition began their piece by piece move higher and higher up the mountain establishing a series of camps along the way. Though each man had his share of hardships on the trek, perhaps George Wood-Johnson had it the worst. He, who had been previously bitten by the Tibetan Mastiff, later had a gastric ulcer.

Further up the mountain, Ruttledge recollects,

“The party would off in single file up the rocks of the north arete, leaving me to solitary contemplation of one of the most magnificent views it has ever been my luck to see. I remember the long shadows cast by the rising sun as the men moved over the snow of the Col, and the still, dark savagery of the western side, which the light had not yet reached. Above towered the gigantic north face of Mount Everest, the very embodiment of silent strength.” (p. 167)

At over 25,000 ft one hiker, Dr. Raymond Greene, found the remains of a camp from 1922 and in it an oxygen cylinder, still full and still functional. Ruttledge notes, “He sat down and tried it for a half a minute. The result was remarkable; everything around seemed to brighten; a lost sense of color returned; for the moment he felt strong, and was able to resume the climb.” (p. 170)

As the expedition proceeded, the weather, especially the wind, worsened.

Wyn Harris found an ice axe stamped with the name of its maker—Willisch of Tasch in the Zermatt Valley—presumably belonging to George Mallory or Andrew Irvine from nine years prior, at a location “250 yards east of the first step.” (p. 195) Likely not wanting to carry any extra weight, they left the axe where they found it and proceeded upwards. Ruttledge later concludes “if our theory as to the scene of the accident is correct, Mallory and Irvine fell on the descent.”! Ruttledge quotes from Odell in The Fight for Everest, 1924 showing that Mallory and Irvine were roped together. And so one might think they would have died together in a fall. But when Mallory’s body was found in 1999 the search never found Irvine (nor his camera which might have proved their summit). And so the mystery remains unsolved.

In “the first assault” the party of Wyn Harris and Wager made it to 28,100 ft. before turning back after calculating they did not have sufficient time to safely summit.

The “second assault” was made by Smythe and Shipton. Camping at 27,400, Shipton was prevented from going much further due to stomach troubles, by Smythe “reached about the same place as Wyn Harris and Wager.” (p. 221) Time again proved to be the greatest obstacle and he returned to camp. Smythe did conclude however “In all probability the summit can be reached by an acclimatized man without oxygen, but the odds against him are great.” (p. 223)

With the weather turning bad, and the monsoons expected to extend through the summer, the expedition was forced to discontinue its climb.

Though the 1933 expedition did not succeed in reaching the summit of Everest, there were other measures of success. They had reached an higher altitude than any human being in history and they had gotten their without supplementary oxygen, a feat which was only bested in 1979 by Reinhold Messner who made the peak entirely without the use of oxygen tanks.

Attack on Everest is an adventuresome read and a good primary source for the history of climbing the world’s tallest mountain.

 

Review of “The Gulag Archipelago” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Gulag Archipelago, An Experiment in Literary Investigation by Aleksandr Solzenhenitsyn, 1973, New York: Harper Perennial, Abridged 2002, 472 pp.

The Gulag Archipelago is one of those “must read” books that I fully agree must be read. As a popular book it certainly has been reviewed thousands of times before. What then can a reviewer say that hasn’t been said before? Not being able to do justice to the political, economical, religious, and psychological depths of the book in a short review, I wanted to note something of Solzhenitsyn’s humor. This is not to overlook the terribleness of the events which occurred, but to note the author finding a small amount of humor in the dreary events of the Russian gulag.

Solzhenitsyn regularly talks about—even jokes about—space. Generally, that is, the prisoner not having enough of it! He writes of his first space after being captured by Russian authorities,

“And I really must describe that closet in a German peasant house which served as a temporary punishment cell. It was the length of one human body and wide enough for three to lie packed tightly, four at a pinch. As it happened, I was the fourth, shoved in after midnight.” (p. 15)

The humor of his “as it happened” is short-lived though as he tells of the horrible conditions of each space prisoners are held in. But, perhaps some humor can be found again in his further recollection of the German closet. He writes, “Then, as if afraid that with the coming of daylight we would have too much room in the punishment cell, they tossed in a fifth person.” (p. 16-17)

Less humorously, because of the deaths which often resulted, Solzhenitsyn writes about train cars designed for eleven people being made to fit as many as thirty-six. (p. 151) Again though, he seems to find a modicum of humor in the situation when he writes, “Was thirty-six the upper limit for a Stolypin compartment? I have no evidence available on thirty-seven or higher, and yet, adhering to our one-and-only scientific method, and remembering the necessity of the struggle against ‘the limiters’ we are compelled to reply: No, no, no! It is not a limit! Perhaps in some other country it would be an upper limit, but not here!” (p. 152)

Perhaps “space” is a significant theme of The Gulag Archipelago. There is the massive space of the Russian taiga and the widespread archipelago of prisons. Against that there are the tiny spaces of the prisons cells and all their accompanying misery. Ultimately there is a strong correlation between space and freedom.

Geneva Lecture 1: What is Religion? – On the Importance of Definitions

[This summer I’ll be giving three lectures and a speech at the Summer Studies in Christian Thought program at the Geneva Institute for Christian Thought in Elizabethton, Tennessee. (http://genevainstitute.org) If you are a junior or senior in high school or are in college, I recommend you check out the program and contact the institute if you’d like to take the courses. Local host families are available to accommodate students from outside of the area]

 

Lecture 1: What is Religion? – On the Importance of Definitions

Required reading: Chapter 1, “Is Christianity a Religion?” in Religion, Reason, and Revelation by Gordon H. Clark, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961.

Summary of the reading:

Chapter 1 of Gordon Clark’s Religion, Reason, and Revelation begins with the question “Is Christianity a religion?” Quickly it is seen that the defining of terms is the crucial step towards answering the question. The necessary preliminary questions to be answered then are “What is Christianity?” and “What is religion?” Addressing the second of these questions first, Clark looks at two general methods that have been used to define the term religion: the “psychological approach” and the “comparative method.”

The psychological (or descriptive) approach is, Clark says, “based on the intimate familiarity of the experience.”(p. 6) On this approach individuals have variously suggested that religion is “passion,” “emotion,” or “a unification of character.” In each case intellectual content is minimized.

The psychological approach, Clark notes, purports to be entirely based on description. But it departs from that intention because of the normative judgments it necessarily relies upon. Clark writes,

“a normative or non-descriptive principle is needed for the selection of what to describe. It is very plausible that no one should philosophize about religion before he describes the phenomena which call for explanation. The facts, so it is said, must precede the theory. But the trouble is that a descriptive procedure can never isolate what must be described. A theory must precede the choice of facts. … The most deceiving and the most deceived author is the one who thinks he is simply describing what is there. The thereitself cannot be selected without presuppositions.” (p. 13-14)

Such a problem exists for the modern humanists who who hold that religion is a “unification of character,” or “the process of achieving a unified, coherent, and effective personality.” (p. 15) That is, a successful integration requires knowledge of what “good” is, but “good” is normative; it can never be discovered by a descriptive process. Judgments necessarily sneak in to the process.

The comparative method, which might seem to hold more promise, is based on examining the similarities of those things usually called religion: “Mohammedanism, Shintoism, Brahmanism, and so on.” (p. 6) This method looks at intellectual content; it compares the beliefs of each system.

When the various so-called religions are compared, however, we see little if any similarity. Is the existence of God the common element in religion? Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe there is a God. Buddhists (and Communists) do not. And it is difficult to determine whether there is a god in Hinduism and in Spinozism. It matters what the term “God” means. Earlier in the chapter Clark had noted that some believe religion to be a personal experience, others believe it to be social, while Christians might believe religion encompasses all of life including “politics, prayer, and procreation.” (p.15)

Clark describes the major problem (the “hunting of the snark”) inherent in the comparative method:

“The method is unsatisfactory because it requires at the outset the knowledge it aims to obtain at the end. In order to discover the common element in all religions, it would first be necessary to distinguish religions from all non-religious phenomena.” (p. 20)

To have a definite and meaningful subject of study, Clark writes, “some specific contents must be selected.” Thus he proceeds from a particular viewpoint, Christianity. Immediately it is asked “What is Christianity?” Clark chooses his definition of Christianity to be the articles of the Westminster Confession. With such a choice, we not only have a definition of Christianity but of God and undoubtably many other terms as well. Choice is necessary and “there is no hypocritical claim that the argument is without presuppositions.” (p. 24)

From the Christian perspective it is seen that there are many religions but no religion. The fall of man is seen to have distorted God’s revelation (the initial religion) and man’s reaction to it such that various deviations have arisen. The greater the deviations the more difficult it is to call it a religion.

This essay begins the theme of the book; that defining one’s terms correctly (Biblically) avoids the “insoluble difficulties, paradoxes, and obvious absurdities” which result from the comparative method.

Terms to learn:

Generic Unity (p. 4.) – The unity of various individuals found in their being members of the same genus or class. For example “Fido,” “Rover,” and “Lassie” are three individuals that are all dogs. The unity of the three is the genus (a word related to the word “generic”) in which the individuals are members.

Normative statement (p. 13) – a claim of how something oughtto be. (to be distinguished from a descriptive statement of how something is.)

Presuppositions (p. 7-8, 14, 24, 27) – assumptions, preconceived notions, biases.

Defiendum – that which is being defined; the word defined.

 

To consider:

1. “If a word means everything, it means nothing. To have no definite or limited meaning is to have no meaning at all.”(p. 23)

“Now if a word has all possible meanings, it means nothing. Suppose there was a word in the dictionary, and you look it up in the dictionary and the meanings were all the other words in the dictionary. Hence, suppose the word were, oh, automobile. The word automobile means cat, it means tree, it means the square root of minus one, and so on, so on, so on. Now to write a book all you have to say, “auto auto auto auto auto auto auto auto.” And that means the New York Yankees are going to win the pennant, and world series in October. Because auto means all those words. But whenever you say something meaningful you must use a word that not only means something, but also doesn’t mean something. And if you deny the law of contradiction, the words means everything. There is nothing the word doesn’t mean.” – Gordon H. Clark, “Is Christianity a Religion, Part 2”, audio lecture.

 

2. Is Christianity/Buddhism/Communism/Juche a religion?

 

 

3. Not every statement is a definition. For example, First Corinthians 13 does not give an explicit definition of what love is.

“[First Corinthians 13 doesn’t define the term [love]. Suppose I tell you, ‘Rembrandt’s paintings are wonderful.’ Well that doesn’t really give you any notion of the difference between Rembrandt and Rubens or something. That’s not a definition of Rembrandt’s art. It may be a true statement, but it’s not a definition.” – Gordon H. Clark, “Knowledge and Persons,” audio lecture.

 

Define the following terms:

God –

 

Man –

 

Sin –

 

 

“If you can’t define your terms you literally don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Antiquarian Books for Sale

For sale:

Item 1:

Clavis Homerica. This is a book written in Latin in 1647. It is a lexicon of words in Homer’s Iliad. Asking price: $500.00

[image error] [image error]

Item 2:

A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ by William Sherlock. 1674. Asking price: $375.00

[image error] [image error]

Item 3:

A Discourse on the Form and Matter of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, According to the Order of the Church of England, by Thomas Comber, 1699. Asking Price: I was unable to find any other copies of this book online for comparison. Considering its apparent rarity my asking price is $1,000.00

[image error] [image error]

Item 4:

A Master-Key to Popery by D. Antonio Gavin, 1773. Asking Price: $400.00

[image error] [image error]

Item 5:

The Speech of The Right Honourable Charles James Fox, July 17, 1782. Asking Price: I was unable to find any other copies of this book online for comparison. Considering its apparent rarity my asking price is $1,000.00

[image error] [image error]

Item 6.

Practical Discourses on the Parable of the Ten Virgins by Benjamin Colman, 1746. Asking Price: Front cover is loose, but no versions of this are available online. $400.00

[image error] [image error]

Item 7.

Discourse of Angels: Their Nature and Office, or Ministry. 1701. Asking Price: cover is loose, very rare, $1000.00

[image error] [image error]

Review of “The Final Word” by O. Palmer Robertson

The Final Word, a Biblical response to the case for tongues & prophecy today, by O. Palmer Robertson, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993, 150 pp.

“God’s ‘final word’ to his people is found in Jesus Christ and in the inspired explanation of his person and works as preserved in the old and new covenant Scriptures.” – Robertson, p. 78

In The Final Word, O. Palmer Robertson presents four descriptive elements about New Testament tongues. He argues that they were (1) revelation, (2) foreign languages, (3) for public consumption, and (4) a sign indicating a radical change in the direction of redemptive history. If Robertson is correct on any one of these four points (and I think he is) then the modern Pentecostal glossolalia is proven unbiblical.

To the first point Robertson notes that of the twenty-eight times ‘mystery’ is used in the New Testament “twenty-seven cases explicitly talk about ‘mystery’ as something once hidden but now revealed.” Thus, he argues, when in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul says “He who speaks in a tongue … utters mysteries” it is to be understood that the person “communicates a truth that has been made known to him by divine revelation.” (p. 26)

That the Biblical tongues were foreign languages Robertson makes very clear. I think this is the strongest point against the modern gibberish-speakers. Robertson writes, “Acts 2:6 makes the point very clearly: ‘Each one heard them speaking in his own language.’ The testimony throughout the rest of the book of Acts gives no indicator that a different kind of tongue was manifested in the experiences of the church after Pentecost.” (p. 33-34)

As for his third point Robertson notes “All gifts of the Spirit were for the benefit of Christ’s church. A ‘gift’ in the New Testament was bestowed on an individual so that he might provide a blessing for the people of God.” (p. 37) He shows the absurdity of the contrary view in a short story:

“Endorsement of the idea of a ‘private’ gift of tongues may lead to a peculiar situation. Suppose a man affirms his sense of call to the ministry. The church responds by indicating its desire to test his gifts. he affirms that in his judgment he has the gift of preaching, so the church tests that gift. He says that he sense in himself the gift of administration. So the church tests that gift. But what if this candidate for the gospel ministry declares that he also has the gift of tongues. Shall the church also test that gift? Or shall it be concluded that tongues are a ‘private’ gift that cannot be tested? Strange indeed would be such a circumstance.” (p. 39-40)

And on Robertson’s fourth point perhaps it is best to note 1 Corinthians 14:22 as he did: “Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.” Robertson then argues “Tongues clearly indicate God’s judgment on unbelief.” He relates this to situations in the Old Testament were foreign languages, particularly Babylonian, are predicted to be heard in Jerusalem, a situation which came to fruition in God’s judgment on Israel with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and captivity of the people.

In chapter 3 Robertson transitions from the topic of tongues to that of prophecy. Here he argues for cessationism, the cessation of prophetic revelations following the close of the canon of the New Testament. One of his main arguments is that revelation has ceased now that Christ has come. That is, “The goal [of revelation] has been manifested in its fullest glory.” “Any claims to add further revelation beyond the end of God’s word as it is found in the completed Scriptures would be not only superfluous but blasphemous.” (p. 66) Those looking for a single “proof” text for cessationism will be disappointed because Robertson’s argument incorporates a number of passages and looks at a more holistic view of the entire Scriptures. Robertson well notes, “Since the ‘goal’ of revelation has been realized in the coming of Christ, God’s people must not continue looking for gifts that would communicate new revelation.” (p 69)

Robertson also looks at the contrast between Paul’s earlier and later writings. In doing so he makes the case that “the level of interest in the gifts of tongues and prophecy declines dramatically in the last writings of Paul.” (p. 75) Instead Titus is charged to teach ‘what is in accord with sound doctrine’ and Timothy told to ‘guard the good deposit’ that has been entrusted to him.  Robertson notes, “These many references to an established body of doctrine in 2 Timothy and Titus point to a different circumstance that that which was addressed in Paul’s earlier writings. The complete absence of the reference to the gifts of prophecy and tongues in these later letters contrasts radically with the circumstance prevailing in the earlier correspondence with the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Roman churches. … Paul locates God’s provision for the future not in an ongoing experience of the special tongues and prophecy, but in the established revelation that has been provided during the years of the apostolic age.” (p. 76)

For those who do demand a proof text, they might be asked to show where the Bible explicitly says that the office of apostle with end as well. Robertson notes, “Nothing in scripture explicitly indicates that the apostolate ever would come to an end. Yet it generally is recognized that no one in the church today functions with the authority of the original apostles.” (p. 80)

Robertson goes on to critique the “dubious” approach to prophecy of Wayne Grudem (p. 86 – 126), and concludes with a practical or pragmatic comparison of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the two competing view on prophecy. (p. 127-135). Not surprisingly, Roberson argues for the superiority of the Scriptures as the final revelation.

I’ve been greatly benefitted by each of O. Palmer Robertson’s books I’ve read; The Christ of the Covenants and The Current Justification Controversy. I believe he is one of the best living scholars of the Reformed faith, and his The Final Word also attests to that.

Review of “The Scriptural Form of Church Government” by C. C. Stewart

The Scriptural Form of Church Government by C. C. Stewart, Toronto: James Campbell & Son, Second Edition, 1872, 197 pp.

The Presbyterian Quarterly Review in 1873 (p. 357) notes the following in a review of The Scriptural Form of Church Government: “Against Prelatists [Episcopalians] and Papists on the one side and the Plymouth Brethren on the other, the author strenuously argues for the Presbyterian as the true form of church government.”

Other than that review I was unable to find much information on the author, Rev. C. C. Stewart M. A. The book does note that he lived in Owen Sound, Ontario and that James Campbell & Son was a Canadian publisher of Sunday School books. In that Stewart defends Presbyterian church government he likely was a minister in a denomination called Presbyterian or in a denomination or independent church which practices such government.

In Stewart’s time it was already clear that the Church of England had fallen from its former theological heights. Stewart writes, “The Church of England was once truly Protestant, but she foolishly retained some of the apparently unimportant forms and doctrines of Rome, and the consequence is now, that the whole High-Church party has abandoned the principles of the Reformation, and the perverts from it to Romanism may be counted in the hundreds.” (p. 19)

He makes solid arguments against the Church of England’s claim of apostolic succession. He contends that apostolic succession is in no way historically verifiable for any church, and that there were many cases where succession was broken in having such situations as imposter bishops, Popes who were only children, and where church offices were sold to the highest bidder. (p. 20-26)

He also makes a number of arguments against the Plymouth Brethren practice of having no distinction between church members and ministers. Of his arguments, the best perhaps are that “It is proved that there is a Ministry by the fact, that private members are called upon to obey their rulers in the Church” (p. 36) and because “the qualifications necessary for the office of Ministry are pointed out … this shows that it is the intention of the Head of the Church [Jesus Christ] that there should be a Ministry.” (p. 38)

The author takes a cessationist position when he argues for a distinction between church offices that are perpetual and church offices that have ceased. He writes, “Apostles, prophets, evangelists, workers of miracles, those possessing gifts of healing, and those having the power to speak miraculously in different languages, have ceased; the rest remain.” (p. 47)

As for the offices that are perpetual, Stewart notes that “helps and deacons are different names for the same officers” (p. 54) and likewise “Elder and bishop are different names for the same officer.” (p. 54-55) For the latter he references especially Titus 1:5-7 where the one office is alternately called elder and bishop.

It would then appear that Stewart takes a 2-office view. He says “We have now the two orders, viz., elders or bishops, and deacons.” (p. 55) It is worth noting that in a way Stewart actually argues for a 1-office of view of actual ministry, as he references Acts 6:1-4 where deacons are arranged so that the elders can “give ourselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the word.” But, following a critique of the Episcopalian position (p. 55-83), Stewart returns to “governments” and argues for a 3-office view. He writes,

“Who are to be understood by governments? Not pastors and teachers, as these have already been mentioned in the list [1 Cor. 12:28 – “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”]; not deacons for they do not rule, and moreover are mentioned already under the name of helps; not elders or primitive bishops, who teach and administer the sacraments, for they are just pastors and teachers, as we have already proved; not diocesan bishops, for the Scripture knows nothing of such an officer … Nor can we suppose that civil rulers are meant, for governments are given to the Church, and civil rulers have no authority in it, as we shall hereafter show. We are then shut up to the conclusions, that by governments is meant ecclesiastical officers, whose special duty it is to rule. In this view we are confirmed by another passage. … ‘Having then gifts different according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth on teaching; or he that exhorteth on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence, &c.’ Nor are they the only rulers in the Church; the elders also rule. (1 Tim. v., 17) Nor are they superior to the elders, for there is not a word in Scripture to indicate such a state of things, but on the contrary much which is opposed to it; neither is there anything to show that they are subordinate to elders: there is then only one remaining supposition possible, and that is, that they are officers who rule in conjunction with the elders.” (p. 85)

He continues,

“We have hitherto refrained from giving a name to these officers, though we are aware that some denominations have done so. We have followed this course for two reasons: first, to show that it is not a name which we contend for, but an office; and secondly, we did not wish to commit ourselves to any theory respecting the dignity of the office, until we had produced Scriptural authority for it. We hav now however, come to that point, where we may take up the theory of the Presbyterian Church on this subject. She holds that the officers indicated by the term governments, are elders whose special duty it is to rule. With this theory let us proceed.

“The Presbyterian Church has all along maintained, that there are two classes of elders, not differing as to rank or dignity, but solely in respect to official duty. The former class both preaches and administers the sacraments, and also rules; while the latter only rules: she considers the ruling elders to be the officers signified by governments (p. 86)

Moving on to the diaconate, Stewart notes that Prelatists “try to make it appear that deacons were ministers of the Word” but “They do not pretend that any such statement is made in the Scripture, but they infer it from the fact, that some of the seven, appointed deacons, afterwards preached.” But, Stewart argues, “It does not follow that because a man is appointed to a particular office, that he must continue to discharge the duties of that office for his lifetime; he may surely resign it and take another. Hence it does not follow that Philip preached as a deacon. He is indeed afterwards mentioned by another name, viz., evangelist.” (p. 100)

But this is the last we hear of evangelists in the volume. It leaves this reader wondering “Is the evangelist another office of the church?”

Stewart continues arguing for the Presbyterian principles of the plurality of elders and of a gradation of church courts(p. 107-117), for the “popular election” of officers and their ordination by elders with particular reference to Acts 14:23 (p. 118 -127), and that Christ alone is the head of the Church (p. 128-173). He concludes with a chapter in defense of the Regulative Principle of Worship, though he nowhere calls it by that name. (p. 174-191)

As evidenced by the space I allotted to the topic in this review, I found The Scriptural Form of Church Government to be particularly insightful on the question of the Bible’s teaching on the ruling elder.

Review of “Strangers in Zion” by William R. Glass

Strangers in Zion, Fundamentalists in the South, 1900-1950 by William R. Glass, Mercer University Press, 2001, 309 pp.

Fundamentalism is true orthodox Christianity represented best in the Southern states, right? WRONG!, according to William R. Glass in Strangers in Zion, Fundamentalists in the South, 1900-1950. In this well-researched and heavily-footnoted volume Glass shows how Fundamentalism emerged in the Northern states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and that while it has affinities with conservative orthodox Christianity, it is a movement all its own; a reaction to growing Liberalism and a deviation from orthodoxy in its promotion of such doctrines as dispensationalism.

Because Fundamentalism initially was a foreign (Northern) movement its followers “had difficulty making a home for themselves in the region [the South].” The Bible conferences which first promoted Fundamenalism in the North later came to the South in the first decades of the twentieth century but were never as successful as in the North. Following these early conferences, Strangers in Zion gives interesting information on the formation of southern Fundamentalist schools including John Brown University (1919), Dallas Theological Seminary (1924), Bob Jones College (1927), and Bryan College (1930, named after William Jennings Bryan).

Perhaps no school figures more prominently in the story than Dallas Theological Seminary, a seminary spurned by Presbyterians and Baptists for years, with many of their churches refusing to hire a pastor if he had attended Dallas.

A major problem was that doctrine of dispensationalism taught at places like Dallas put Fundamentalists at odds with the actual conservatives for whom that doctrine was a novelty. Dallas’ founder Lewis Sperry Chafer tried to sneak his dispensationalism in under the banner of premillennialism and claim it orthodox only to later suggest that Presbyterians do away with their confession and judge dispensationalism not by it but by the Bible.

While various southern Christians struggled against Fundamentalism because they believed that its insistence on dispensationalism “comes in to disturb the peace,” they often remained naive to the growing liberalism in the churches thinking that it was a problem in the North but not so much in the South. This allowed liberalism to slowly work its way into the southern churches, eventuating in, for example, a merger of the Southern Presbyterians with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in 1983; a merger which fell only 1 vote short in 1955. (p. 180)

For Southern Presbyterian history Strangers in Zion is a good book to read in conjunction with For a Continuing Church by Sean Michael Lucas as, while they have some overlap, the former larger ends where the latter takes off.