Remythologizing Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer - now available in paperback

Kevin Vanhoozer's contribution to the Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine series was originally published as a hardback title in 2010. At £75 a throw, its price was a little prohibitive (Cambridge University Press kindly sent me a review copy). But the good news is that Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship, is now out in paperback, at the much reduced cost of £29.99 - see  here. 

Vanhoozer's basic standpoint is that of historic Reformed theology, but with special attention to the divine communicative action. In a way that is typical of the theologian's work, he has attempted to re-orientate theology towards the theodrama of biblical revelation. As such, Remythologizing Theology makes a fresh, compelling and valuable contribution to the doctrine of God. The critical interaction with open panentheism is welcome at a time when some Evangelicals (especially "post-Evangelicals" and Emergent types) seem to find such a view of God attractive. The book deserves to be read not only by theological students and theologians, but also by pastors who aspire to being pastor-theologians in order to be of better service to the people of God. 

More info: 

Remythologizing Theology: An Interview with Kevin Vanhoozer. 

Remythologizing Theology: Review Series. 

The Son of God with Power

Paul begins his Epistle to the Romans with a summary statement of the gospel he wished to proclaim in Rome:

The gospel of God…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead. (Romans 1:3& 4.)

Paul sets before us the broken symmetry of the life Jesus Christ who was “born according to the flesh” and “declared to be the Son of God with power”. The great transitional event in these two phases of the history of Jesus Christ is his resurrection from the dead. For Paul “flesh” is synonymous with human life in a fallen world. To be born “according to the flesh” is to be born weak. God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). To be sure, Jesus Christ “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet he came as flesh, without the trappings of kingly majesty.

But this man, Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power”. This, at any rate is how the New King James Version translates the text. Scholars are divided on how exactly we are to translate the participle “declared” in question. In usage elsewhere in the New Testament, the verb can mean to “delineate” or “demarcate”. This meaning is apparent when regional boundaries or borders are described, “in the regions of…” (Matthew 4:13, 8:34). In this sense, Jesus was “marked out” or “delineated” as the Son of God. Another use of the verb is “to determine” in God’s purpose (Luke 22:22), (Acts 2:23). The word is also used to describe Jesus being appointed or ordained by God as judge of all mankind, (Acts 10:43, 7:31).

But if we take the word here to mean “appointed”, in what meaningful sense could Jesus Christ be “appointed” as the Son of God? Orthodox Christology has always insisted that Jesus Christ ever was the Son of God. Our text itself suggests that it was “his Son” that was “born according to the flesh”. Also in Galatians 4:4 Paul affirms the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God. He did not become God’s Son at birth, it was as God’s Son he was sent to be born.

Evangelical expositors will want to avoid any suggestion that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection. This would be to fall into the heresy of adoptionism – the notion that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son, rather than being God’s Son from eternity.

Because of this difficulty with Jesus being “appointed” as the Son of God by his resurrection, some scholars prefer the translation that Jesus was “declared or “marked out” to be the Son of God”. Dr. Robert Reymond argues for this point of view (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Nelson, 1998, p. 240-245). He takes the words “in power” as qualifying the participle “declared” or “marked out”. Jesus was thus “powerfully marked out as the Son of God …by the resurrection of the dead.” (Reymond, 1998: 242.) Reymond, understands the phrase “by the Spirit of holiness” to mean Jesus’ divine nature, that stands contrast to his human nature as “flesh”. Thus Reymond, paraphrases the text, “who was powerfully marked out as the Son of God in accordance with his divine nature by his resurrection from the dead.” (Reymond, 1998: 243.)

But is this necessarily the best interpretation of the text? Reymond has avoided any suggestion that Christ became the Son of God by his resurrection. However, his exegesis is not shared by other Reformed scholars who prefer the translation that “Jesus…was appointed [not simply marked out as] the Son of God with power ...”

At least as far back as Geerhardus Vos, conservative scholars have argued that, “The reference [in Romans 1:4] is not  to two coexisting states in the make-up of the Saviour - his divine and human natures - but to two successive stages in his life.” (Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, P & R, 1930, p. 155.) The contrast in the text is between Jesus Christ being born according to the flesh by incarnation and appointed the Son of God with power by resurrection. The words “with power” qualify the new resurrected state of the “Son of God”. In the flesh, Jesus was the Son of God in weakness, but after his resurrection he was appointed the Son of God with power.

The apostle is dealing with some particular event in the history of the Son of God incarnate by which he was instated in a position of sovereignty and invested with power, an event which in respect of investiture with power surpassed everything that could be ascribed to him in his incarnate state. (John Murray, Romans, Eerdmans, 1987, p. 11.)

The “spirit of holiness” need not be taken to mean the Son’s divine nature as Reymond suggests. Paul’s intention is not to reflect on the relative natures, divine and human than constitute the person of the Son of God. He is describing the Son’s incarnate state before and after his resurrection from the dead. “Spirit of holiness” is a unique designation of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. However, as Barrett points out, it was a common way of referring to the Holy Spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic writing. (C. K. Barrett, Paul, Geofferey Chapman, 1994, p. 24.) If, as Barrett suggests, Paul is using a pre-existing creedal formula here, this unusual way of describing the Spirit makes perfect sense. Murray comments,

Thus when we come back to the expression “according to the Spirit of holiness”, our inference is that it refers to that stage of pneumatic endowment upon which Jesus entered through his resurrection. (Murray, 1987: 11.)

Post-resurrection, the incarnate life of the Son of God was transformed and endued with new power by the Spirit. Paul can write that, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45.) Christ was conceived by the Spirit according to his human nature and endued with the Spirit at his baptism. But on his resurrection, the Son was lifted to an unprecedented plane of Holy Spirit dynamism. The time of incarnated weakness is over. Jesus is now the Son of God with power.

This interpretation, that Jesus was appointed as the Son of God with power by his resurrection, avoids the danger of adoptionist Christology, while doing justice to the language of the text. It was because Jesus Christ was God’s Son and the messianic seed of David, born according to the flesh, and who died for sinners, that he was appointed the Son of God with power. “He was raised because of what he was. He did not become Son by being raised: he was raised because he was Son.” (Donald McLeod, The Person of Christ, IVP, 1998, p. 91.)

Good Friday and the Son's impassible passion

For thus we say that He both suffered and rose again, not as though God the Word suffered in His own Nature either stripes or piercings of nails or the other wounds (for the Godhead is Impassible because It is also Incorporeal), but since that which had been made His own body suffered these things, He again is said to suffer for us, for the Impassible was in the suffering Body. (St Cyril's First Letter to Nestorius, here). 

According to Cyril of Alexandria, at Calvary, "the impassible was in the suffering Body". In so saying Cyril rightly affirmed the impassibility of the divine Word and also took into account that the Word made flesh suffered for us in his humanity. This is where the communicatio idiomatum or 'communion of attributes' in the incarnate Son comes into play. That which was true of Jesus only in his humanity, i.e. he suffered and died, was not an act of his human nature per se, but the act of the person of the Son in and through his humanity. It is  not sufficient to say that the divine nature of the Son remained impassible, while his human nature suffered on the cross. Rather, it was the case that the person of the Son of God suffered for us in his humanity, Galatians 2:20. 

When theologians speak of the 'passive' obedience of Christ at the cross, as distinct from the 'active' obedience of his life, it is not meant to suggest that Christ was inactive at Calvary. When used in this context, 'passive' means 'suffering', in the same way that 'impassibility' means 'without suffering'. However, we must remember that the  whole of Jesus' incarnate life involved suffering (Hebrews 5:8), and that his death was a positive act of obedience (Philippians 2:8 cf. John 10:17-18). In the words of B. B. Warfield, 'His very passion was his own action.' (The Person and Work of Christ, p. 134, P&R). 

This is important, because we should not think of Christ as a mere victim of suffering. The Son did not suffer on the cross primarily in order to show empathy with a world racked by pain and tragedy. Certainly, Jesus our great high priest is able to sympathise with our weaknesses, (Hebrews 4:15). But his cross was not so much an act of divine identity with a suffering world, as divine self-substitution for a guilty world. The good news is this: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3 cf. 1 Peter 3:18). 

What we sinners need above above all else is not the sympathy fellow-sufferer, but the salvation accomplished by a substitute-sufferer. Jesus'  cry on the cross was not, "Now I know how you feel!", but, "It is finished!". We are saved by the impassible passion of the Word made flesh and crucified for us at Golgotha. 

The existential dust of David Sky

David Sky, my pet monkey, was last seen heading into the gloom of a chill winter's evening. That was over a year ago, on 14 January 2011 (see here).  Rumours of his whereabouts occasionally punctuated the numb emptiness engendered by his absence with the feeble risings of hope. But the slightest expectations of finding David Sky alive were repeatedly dashed with the casual cruelty of a wasp stinging a small child. It was obvious that Taffia Godfather, Dai Corleone wouldn't simply let Sky out of his clutches. Even if you are just a tea boy, you can't walk out on the Mob. As Corleone could often be overheard saying, "Keep your friends close, keep your tea bags closer."

Where David Sky once sat in my study, on the bookshelf just in front of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3, there is now only an empty space. Even the monkey-shaped clearing in the dust that once marked his memory has almost disappeared completely. It is as if he never existed; an existential void created by a fresh layering of study-dust. I began to wonder, was there ever such a creature as David Sky, a theological monkey?

But, the other day, after being out for an hour or so, I returned home and checked the phone for 1517 messages. On picking up the handset I heard the tell-tale beep, beep, beep tone that signalled a message had been left. On pressing 1 to listen to the message, I heard what seemed like the familiar sound of David Sky's voice. The strangely garbled message, in which not a word could be deciphered smacked of his irritating, know-all, sarcastic tone. But the message came to an abrupt end with a dull thud. Followed by silence. Could it really be him?

If it was David Sky trying desperately to leave me a message, I thought that I had heard the last of him. However, another 1571 message was left just this morning. This time I could make out a few words, but the voice, definitely Sky's, now sounded weary, haunted, with none of the customary hauteur. "Help....want...home....help....sorr...". That was it. Was he really trying to say, 'sorry'?

Desperate to speak to my old monkey friend, I tried to trace his phone number, but dialling 1417 only came up with, 'The number of this caller was withheld.' There was nothing for it but to sit tight and wait for him to call again. A couple of hours went by before the phone rang. I anxiously lunged for the handset, but it was a spoken text message from the dentist, reminding me of tomorrow's check-up appointment. It was difficult to concentrate on anything else, but I pulled Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3 from the shelf, turned to the bookmarked page and started reading.

The door bell rang, abruptly interrupting my absorption with Bavinck's rich treatment of the covenant of grace. I made my way downstairs and opened the door. It was Bathsheba Earth. She just stood there. The girl-monkey was calm, almost icily emotionless. She handed me a note. Then walked away without a word. I came to myself. Called out after her, 'Wait a minute...'. But she had gone. I unfolded the note. It was Sky's scrawly handwriting. He apologised for not getting in touch sooner. Then he explained the reason behind his strange disappearance, over a year ago.

Unfortunately I can't divulge the contents of the note for fear of jeopardising David Sky's safety. All I can say is that he's hiding from the Taffia. Should Dai Corleone discover his whereabouts there is no doubt that my old friend would find himself 'sleeping with the fishes'. And Bathsheba Earth? Actually, she's Bathsheba Sky now. For, dear reader, the monkey married her. Apparently it isn't working out too well. Hence the second 1571 message. Ah, well. For better/for worse and all that.

But it looks like David Sky has gone for good. All that's left to prove that he once existed is his long ago abandoned blog, Sky's the Limit,  and the faint traces of existential dust. 

Preaching: A Beginners' Guide (3)

4. From sermon to preaching

The sermon is not a work of literature. It is not designed to be read word for word, but to enable you to think through and develop your message. A written sermon will form the basis of preaching, but preaching is more than a sermon spoken out loud. The sermon will provide a basic framework, but the preacher must not be too bound to it. There should be an element of unpredictability in preaching. The preacher will need to learn to improvise within the basic structure and flow of the sermon as he interacts with the congregation.

If using notes, don’t bury your head in them from beginning to end. Maintain eye contact with the people in order to really communicate with them. If not using notes, don’t be tempted to skimp on preparation and leave everything to the spur of the moment. Think yourself clear. Pray yourself hot. Let yourself go!

5. What to avoid

Don’t try and pack too much in. You don’t have to dump all the results of your preparation on the people. Be selective. Stick to the main point.

Don’t preach over the people’s heads. Remember that your job is to make the complicated simple, not the other way round. Explain big words and unfamiliar concepts.

Don’t preach for too long. Enough said. Hopefully.

6. Preparing ourselves to preach

Our task is to enable the people of God to understand and feel the truth of Scripture in order to practice it. To that end the preacher must pray, think and feel his way into the text so that his preaching becomes a living performance of the message. This does not mean that the preacher "play acts" his sermon. But we must reflectively apply the sermon to ourselves before we preach to others, 1 Tim 4:16. Preaching should be a vivid enactment of the drama of redemption, where God's Christ-centred Word is proclaimed to his people in the power of the Spirit.

7. The Holy Spirit and preaching

The Bible emphasises the importance of the work of the Spirit in relation to preaching. Paul testifies: ‘our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance ...’ (1 Thessalonians 1:5, also 1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

Empowered by the Spirit at Pentecost, Peter preached and 3,000 people were converted, baptised and added to the church. Pentecost inaugurated a new era of the Spirit. As such it was an unrepeatable event. But there was still need of further fillings to empower gospel preaching (see Acts 4:8, 31).

The Holy Spirit gives preachers clarity of thought, boldness of speech and heaven-sent authority. The Jerusalem church prayed, ‘Now, Lord ... grant to your servants that with all boldness they may preach your word’ (Acts 4:29). Their prayers were answered — ‘they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness’ (Acts 4:31).

The Spirit’s empowering presence enables preachers to proclaim the Lord Jesus with boldness, liberty and life-transforming effectiveness. His presence makes preaching an event where the God of the gospel is encountered in all the fullness of his grace and power. This is what makes preaching ‘theology on fire’. Both preachers and people must seek God for this and rest content with nothing less.

* From a talk given at a Preachers' Workshop, Zion Baptist Church, Trowbridge. 

Preaching: A Beginners' Guide (2)

3. From text to sermon

1)      Decide on your text

Pray for the Lord’s guidance. Reflect on the basic thrust of your sermon. Will it be evangelistic, aimed at presenting the gospel to the unconverted, or a message that is primarily for the people of God? What does the congregation they need to hear; encouragement, challenge, or warning?

When first setting out stick to passages that you know pretty well rather than try and tackle something from Ezekiel or Revelation. Learn to walk before you run.

2)      Discern the meaning of your text

Ask questions of your text:

1. What is its context in the passage?

2. What is the literary form of the text? Is it poetry, a song, historical prose, a parable, a Gospel or an Epistle?

3. What is the place of the text in the plot line of the Bible?

4. What doctrine is being taught by the text? What does it say about God, salvation, the Christian life or the last things? How does what is being taught in the text relate to the teaching of the Bible as a whole?

5. What is the practical application of your text?

6. As each sermon should have one main point, what is the leading theme of the passage?

3)      Develop a clear sermon structure

This will make your message memorable and easy to follow. The order of sermon points should be logical and progressive, giving the message a sense of momentum. Try and follow the natural divisions of your text. For example, Genesis 22 could be divided up as follows:

I.                   The Lord tests Abraham (22:1-6)

II.                The Lord provides for Abraham (22:7-14)

III.             The Lord promises blessing for Abraham (22:15-24)

Alliteration is nice when it happens naturally, but not absolutely necessary.

4)      Use helpful illustrations

Illustrations help people to understand what is being said. They should illuminate the truth rather than draw attention to themselves. Biblical narratives are virtually self-illustrating. Abraham is the key example of a man whose faith is on trial in Genesis 22. But including other instances of people whose faith has been tried and tested will help to get the point home.

5)      Preach Christ from all the Scriptures

This is especially important when preaching from the Old Testament. See Jesus’ own practice, Luke 24:44-49. Genesis 22 is about Isaac, the promised “seed” sacrificed and risen. (Genesis 3:15, 21:12, Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 11:17-19). Note the way Paul echoes Genesis 22:16 in Romans 8:32, which is about the Lord providing for his people, another theme in Genesis 22.  

6)      Discriminatingly apply your message

The purpose of preaching is to enable the people of God to play their roles in the drama of redemption. Application must be rooted in the gospel and determined by the text on which you are preaching. If the text is a promise, the application is, believe it. If a command, obey it. If a warning, heed it. Apply the message appropriately to different kinds of people. Urge unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel. Comfort and encourage the downcast. Challenge the spiritually lazy. Explain God’s ways to the perplexed. Apply the message all the way through, not just at the end. 

Preaching: A Beginners' Guide (1)

1. What is preaching?

It is perhaps easier to say what preaching is not than what it is. It is not the sharing of some golden thoughts on a biblical text. Preaching is not a Bible Study. It is not a lecture. Preaching is not stand up comedy. What is it then? Very simply, preaching is the proclamation of the word of God by men to other human beings. Preaching then, has four main components: The Man suitably gifted and called. The Message, the word of God. The Medium, spoken proclamation. The Motivation: to benefit other human beings, Colossians 1:28. But perhaps my definition is a little prosaic. According to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, preaching is “theology on fire”.

2. A preacher’s starter kit

1) Prayer

A man must not presume to speak for God unless he has first spoken to God, Acts 6:4.

2) A good Bible translation

Preaching involves the accurate explanation of Scripture. A paraphrase like the Good News Bible will not do. Use a proper, reliable translation such as; AV, NKJV, ESV, NIV. The ‘Bible Gateway’ website is fully searchable and gives access to a wide range of translations.

3) Bible Commentaries

C. H. Spurgeon on the use of commentaries,

It seems odd, that certain men, who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others…. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries… A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences.

Old masters such as John Calvin and Matthew Henry are available for free online. Volumes in the Welwyn Bible Commentary series (Evangelical Press) are usually worth consulting.

The ‘Logos Bible Software’ package comes complete with a range of commentaries and has a useful interlinear Bible translation feature. 

4) Biblical theology

Biblical theology is the study of progressive revelation, instilling an awareness of the basic plot line of the Bible from creation to new creation. It also attempts to trace the development major biblical themes, such as the coming of the promised “seed”, covenant, inheritance, the person and work of the Messiah, etc.  This discipline will help the preacher understand where his text stands in the redemptive-historical flow of biblical revelation.

5) Systematic Theology

Systematic theology aims at giving us a grasp of the whole counsel of God. Systematics sets out biblical revelation in a logical arrangement of topics from God to the Last Things. This enables the preacher to understand the interrelationship between the various doctrines of the Bible. It also provides a safeguard against interpreting a text in such a way that what is said is a contradiction of what is written elsewhere in Scripture. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 is like a mini-systematic theology. Familiarity with the confession will help ensure that your preaching is doctrinally orthodox.

6) Books on preaching

Preaching and Preachers, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Hodder)

Preaching Simply Explained by Stuart Olyott (Evangelical Press).  

Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions, by John Piper

Let the Nations be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Mission,

John Piper, IVP, 2003, revised and expanded edition, 255pp. 

OK. Let's pretend that John Piper is just an ordinary Christian writer rather than the official guru of Christian Hedonism and the unofficial leader of the Young, Restless, Reformed set. I know I'm asking a lot, but please indulge me on this one. Let's pretend that John Piper the 'ordinary Christian writer' rather than 'Hedo-Man'  has written this book so we can try and assess it on its merits. Novel idea, eh?

Here I will attempt to offer as unbiased review as I can, given that no human being can ever fully divest themselves of their cultural/theological/personal predilections and prejudices. Oh, and just so you know, I am neither in the 'love John Piper to death' or 'stone John Piper to death' camps. I feel myself under no particular obligation to agree or disagree with his every word. 

Right then, enough of the preamble and down to the review. Piper's basic thesis, set out in the opening chapter is that "mission exists because worship doesn't." The ultimate goal of mission is to "bring the nations into the white-hot enjoyment of God's glory." God is passionate for his own glory revealed in the salvation of people from every tribe, tongue and nation. So far so Edwardsian (Jonathan Edwards that is), and biblical as Piper's myriad of Scripture citations show.

Fired by a passion for God's glory the church is called to fulfill her Great Commission to disciple the nations for Christ.  It is at this point that Piper trots out the mantra of Christian Hedonism, that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."  But I wonder. Is God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him? Yes, we must seek satisfaction in God and when we do that he is glorified, Psalm 36:7-9, 37:4 etc. However, the greatest commandment is not that we find satisfaction in God, but that we love him, Deuteronomy 6:5. If we love God, we will be satisfied in him, but love is the key thing not satisfaction. Also, in Scripture the glorification of God is explicitly tied to fruitful Christian service, John 15:8, Colossians 1:9-11. The trouble with Christian Hedonism is that it puts too much emphasis on subjective satisfaction in God at the expense of the biblical categories of love and fruitful service.

Nevertheless it is certainly true that a joyful concern for his glory will move the people of God to love lost sinners, and pray, work and suffer for their salvation. As he works all of this out in detail in the main body of the book, Piper's reflections on mission are shot through with thoughtful biblical exegesis. A chapter on the meaning of "all nations" is especially insightful. Mission means reaching unreached people groups for Christ. Once a church has been planted among a people, the task of evangelising them continues, but mission is a pioneering work. Inspiring illustrations of heroic missionary endeavour are drawn from figures such as David Brainerd, John Paton and Jim Eliot.

On controversial matters in contemporary missiology, Piper is commendably clear that Christ must be the conscious focus of saving faith. He is equally clear that hell entails the eternal, conscious punishment of the wicked.

The chapter on The Inner Spirituality and Outer Freedom of Worldwide Worship was the most problematic for me. I'm not sure that the the New Testament is as indifferent to outward forms of worship as Piper suggests. The basic elements that constitute the public worship of God are clearly revealed: prayer, the reading of Holy Scripture, the preaching of the Word, the singing of psalms and hymns, baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the pronouncement of the benediction. Granted, the precise ordering and arrangement of these elements is not set in stone, but that does not denote indifference to the form of worship. And while worship does involve the whole of life, there is something unique about the gathered worship of the church in the presence of the triune God.

Apart from a brief afterword, little is said concerning the role of the local church in sending and supporting missionaries. No attention is given to the often tricky relationship between the church and missionary societies. Do the societies exist to do mission in their own right, or is their function to facilitate the missionary activities of the churches? I believe that it's the latter, but Piper doesn't say and something badly needs to be said on this point.

While some matters could have been handled better and others given more attention, Piper has succeeded in setting before his readers a grand vision of the supremacy of God in missions. Mission exists because worship doesn't. For the sake of the glory of God and out of compassion for lost sinners may the church in our generation give herself wholeheartedly to the great work of  reaching all peoples with the good news of Jesus. This is just the book for renewing our passion for mission. Whether its is our calling to go and serve, or stay and pray, may our cry be one, "Let the peoples praise you, O God... Oh, let the nations be glad" (Psalm 67:3-4).

Alright, I know I got a bit carried away at the end there, but a fair review? 

Conference: Neo-Calvinism and the French Revolution

From The Bavinck Institute:

The French Revolution was the scene of much intellectual and social upheaval. Its impact touched a wide range of subjects: the relationship of the church to the state, social relationships, science, literature, fashion, philosophy and theology. Although the French Revolution’s momentum was felt across Europe and North America, it met a particularly interesting response in the Netherlands, at that time the scene of a burgeoning neo-Calvinist movement. In that context, the likes of Groen van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck responded to the French Revolution’s ideals and influence in a variety of intellectual and practical ways.

This conference (at the American Church in Paris, on 23–24 August 2012) will focus on the historical and theological aspects of this neo-Calvinist response to the French Revolution.

Thanks to James Eglinton for the heads up. 

Garry Williams on The Bible as God’s Covenant Treaty

On Wednesday we had Garry Williams, Director of the John Owen Centre come along to our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. He led a seminar on The Bible as God’s Covenant Treaty. Basically it was an elegant, erudite and engaging plea for 'theological theology'.

Theology cannot exist on another than theological basis. And the theological basis for theology is the self-revelation of God in Holy Scripture. The Bible is best regarded not as a doctrinal textbook, or 'A Bumper Magic Book of Promises', but as the triune God's covenant treaty with the church.

Attention was drawn to the Bible's own witness to its covenantal character. The insights of Meredith Kline are helpful on this point, setting Old Testament Scripture against the background of ANE suzeran-vassal treaties. Deuteronomy is structured in the form of a classic treaty/covenant document: Preamble (1:1-5), Historical prologue (1:6-4:49). Stipulations (5-26), Curses and blessings (27-30), Succession arrangements (31-34). In one way or another, all the books of the Bible, with their differing genres fit into this covenant framework.

In making his case Garry interacted the writings of some of my favourite authors; Herman Bavinck, Timothy Ward, John Webster, Kevin Vanhoozer, etc. He offered a well thought through defence of biblical inerrancy.

Thinking of Scripture as a covenant treaty reminds us of the role of the Bible in the drama of redemption. The church is called not simply to study Scripture as an ancient text, but to respond in faith and obedience to the communicative action of the triune God who addresses us through his covenant Word.

It was a proper seminar, with opportunities to interrupt Garry and discuss what he said as he made his way through the paper. In all, it was a most helpful and stimulating day.

Contact Garry Williams through the JOC website if you might be interested in hosting a seminar at your fraternal.