Always-Church and Physical Manifestation

From the "So-Called Second Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians" (ca. A.D. 150) (as provided in Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, at 43):

"I presume that you are not ignorant of the fact that the living Church is the body of Christ. The Scripture says, "God made man male and female." The male is Christ, and the female is the Church. Moreover, the Books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but has existed from the beginning. She was spiritual, just as was our Jesus; but He was manifested in the last days so that He might save us. And the Church, being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ."

The proposition that the always-Church was spiritual throughout history until the incarnation, when it was made physically manifest seems contrary to my Reformed paradigm.

The Westminster Confession of Faith tells us that the Church before Christ's incarnation ("as before under the law") was "visible" only in one nation. Since then, it has become visibly manifest in all those throughout the world who "profess the true religion." WCOF, Chapter XXV, Sec. 2. I take this manifestation by profession to be a spiritualized manifestation; we are spiritually members of Christ's body, not physical members. While membership in the Church was through genetic lineage, a manifestation by descent, it is now passed on through the spiritual condition of professing the true religion. In other words, there is no more physical manifestation of the visible Church, only a spiritual manifestation.

Thus the Reformed view seems to be that the always-Church was physical (with the Jews) throughout history until the incarnation, when it was spiritualized for all peoples.

But the letter I quoted, thought to be the oldest extant Christian homily, does raise an interesting point. It would be an unusual irony if Christ's appearing in the flesh put the Church out of its own.

Man's Chief End

Question and Answer One of the Westminster Shorter Catechism states that man's "chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever".

I came across what I believe to be the Roman Catholic answer to the same question (i.e., "What is the chief end of man?"). Man "alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity" (Catholic Catechism, 356).

The difference between these two is interesting. The Calvinist sees man as existing for God's glorification and man's enjoyment of Him. The Catholic sees man as existing to share in God's life. It seems straightforward that this difference follows from the respective positions Calvinists and Catholics hold on man's free will. The Calvinist admires God's monergistically sovereign decree to salvation and reprobation, and feels thankful for happening to be in the former camp (of salvation). The Catholic sees an ongoing call to cooperation with and love of God.

The Catholic Catechism notes that "sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him" (ibid., 387). I find this idea that there can be no love when there is no freedom simple and persuasive. If this idea and the Catholic view of the chief end of man are right, then of course man has free will.

If God's glorification requires receiving love from His (predestinated) elect creatures, and if there can be no love without freedom, then the Shorter Catechism's First Q&A is at loggerheads with Calvinism's double-election teaching. In other words, if His glory requires love, and love requires freedom, then our living out this Great Predestinated Drama will fail to meet our chief end.

God Repents Of Evil In Jonah 3:10

Here's some food for thought on the NIV translation of a confusing verse (and here the NIV seems in common with most other modern translations) (and -duh- all emphasis mine):

Jonah 3:10: "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil [rah] ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction [rah] he had threatened. (NIV)"

And in the RSV: "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it." The KJV is identical in relevant parts.

My thoughts are simple and predictable.

1) I am puzzled beyond words at this notion that God would repent of an evil that He had intended to perform. Now, this doesn't concern me, as I take "evil" here to mean something like calamity, injury, misery or distress (all part of Strong's definition). What's puzzling is that God repented of an act He had willed to perform. What of God's being without passions and "immutable" (WCOF, Ch. 2, I)? Of course, if we white-wash God's intentions down to a mere threatening, we have cured any conflict between Scripture and a certain confessional tradition.

2) What gives an editorial board or "translation" committee the power or authority to decide that the same word should be translated two different ways in the same verse? This, as a license, makes me tremendously uncomfortable, especially under the rubric of an all-sufficient and entirely perspicuous view of Bible. Let evil be evil, and let God repent away, if that is what the Spirit-breathed words tell us.

Mathison on the Church Fathers

Much has been written about Keith A. Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura (for example, one blogger wrote this). I previously noted that Mathison describes one of five theories I've heard of the canon rationale churches follow to reach a 66-book canon. Mathison expresses that the church was authoritatively (though not infallibly) reliable in identifying canon, but only until the fourth century, at which point it become corrupt. Thus the Reformation, properly understood, merely recaptured the early church's purity.

I am struck by the fact that his work has been so well received and highly praised within my Reformed circle. Indeed, the book was given to me by a Reformed pastor as an antidote to the confusion I experienced from the likes of Catholic apologists (I noted this in a recent comment). It is striking simply because his theory may not be in conformity with the Westminster Confession. The Confession notes that while "[w]e may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture," "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit..." (Chapter 1, Section V). Contrariwise, Mathison relies on the true church abiding under the regula fidei to determine canon and articulate the doctrines relating thereunto.

Admittedly, it is difficult to sum up his book so briefly, and I've probably done a poor job of it. He covers a great deal of territory and makes many controversial claims (what isn't controversial within Christianity?). I do recommend that you read him before you accept any of my compliments or criticisms. That said, I'd like from time to time to post on his interpretation and analyses of certain Church Fathers, and will refer back to this as a prefatory post. If you have read it, I hope some subsequent posts can spark fruitful discussion on the merits of his analysis.

Sola Scriptura is Dead

Dear friends,

I have been nagged by a feeling of slight disingenuity (which some of you have no doubt perceived) regarding the depth of my "Protestantism". I am a PCA member, and have made my doubts known to my Pastor, so that I can be properly under my elders' rule and discipline. However, the time has come where I must recognize, and admit to anyone reading my thoughts on this blog, that sola Scriptura has, to me, finally died.

My church teaches that, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section IV)"

Further, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section IX)"

Finally worth noting presently, "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section X)"

I can no longer make these confessions. Taking these three sections in order:

1) Identifying which books are Holy Scripture is a prerequisite to obeying their inherent authority. I believe that we certainly rely on the testimony of the ancient church, and the testimony continuing through to the present, to know which books are Holy Scripture. While the spoken Word of God is authoritative because of its source, and without the approval of men, this Word is not self-authenticating. To say that the Holy Scriptures are self-authenticating is novel to the Reformation (later than Luther, even), and is an extra-biblical rule.

2) I believe that the rule of 'scripture interprets scripture; clear text interprets vague' has failed. It was a theory novel to the Reformation, to counter claims that a Church is needed to interpret Scripture. Who decides which passages are clear, and which are vague? Do the vague passages carry less truth than do the purportedly clear? Why would the God-breathed Word given to be our sole rule be so vague in the first place? The Holy Scriptures are no Constitution, and they are no Catechism. They are a collection of sacred and ancient writings. To interpret vague text by clear is an extra-biblical rule.

3) I do not believe that the Holy Spirit solely speaking in Scriptures is the sole judge of all councils, doctrines, and judgments of men. That the Holy Spirit can guide and judge in no other way is in clear tension with the practice of the early Church as noted in Holy Scriptures. Judas was replaced by the casting of lots, done in faith that the Holy Spirit would judge who was the most fit replacement. Paul was called on the Road to Damascus not by Scripture, but by Christ's immediate appearance. Peter called the Council of Jerusalem to set doctrine and settle dispute. That the Holy Spirit could teach in no way other than through the finite and particular word of Holy Scripture is to limit His ability to respond to prayer and work through the Sacraments of the Church. I believe that the Word is our ultimate authority, but the Word is bigger than the text of the words in Holy Scripture. That the Holy Spirit is so contained is a teaching novel to the time of the Reformation, and is an extra-Biblical rule.

I do confess that I don't know where to go from here. I'm in a ghastly no-man's land, truly a citizen neither of the World, nor of the Church. I do not mean in any way to disparage the Holy Scriptures, but only to point out that man's extra-biblical rules of interpretaion are no longer persuasive. If the Reformation was right, surely we can do better!