On the Reformation Debate between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin

In 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, bishop of Carpentras and a Jesuit priest, wrote a letter to the Genevese to urge them to return to the Catholic faith. At that time, John Calvin had been exiled from Geneva, and was then a minister at Strasbourg. The city council of Geneva consulted Calvin regarding Sadoleto’s letter, and Calvin agreed to give a reply. Calvin’s reply strongly defended the viewpoint of the Reformed movement. Both Sadoleto and Calvin were highly educated, and their letters are very valuable for understanding the theological debate at the times of Reformation. This debate was very academic, and apparently did not arouse a public discussion. However, it is undoubtedly an invaluable one because the discussion touched the very essence of the Reformation movement. It touched on various doctrines, but ultimately, the key difference is about the ultimate authority, whether it is the Word of God, or the rich ecclesiastical tradition of the Church.

Sadoleto was a very learned man. In his letter, he first pointed out the doctrines that both the Catholics and the Protestants agreed before discussing the differences. Examples including truth shining in darkness, its perspicuity both to the learned and the unlearned, doctrines’ foundation on humility and obedience towards God,[1] Christ’s work on Earth and His example being our role model,[2] His resurrection, His divine nature, His great work of redemption, salvation through Christ,[3] the significance of piety toward God, and the work of the Holy Spirit.[4] Sadoleto said he also agreed on “justification through faith alone,”[5] but it is definitely one of the biggest discrepancies between Catholic and Reformed teachings. Reformers did not initially sought for schism from the Church but to purify the Church in terms of doctrines, spiritual atmosphere, sacraments, and church polity. However, the differences between the Catholics and the Protestants were, and are, so big that the “unity” which Sadoleto begged for was not a true unity. As Calvin stated in his reply, true unity is not the tranquility inside the church without resolving great disputes and controversies.[6] Sadoleto did not use strong words in his letter. However, Calvin accused Sadoleto in his reply Sadoleto’s craft,[7] twisting of words, defaming the Reformers,[8] maintaining the wrong doctrines while knowing they were wrong,[9] and many other faults. Calvin pointed out the essential differences, and defended the Reformed teachings.

Sadoleto first accused the Protestants of “boasting” of some “hidden interpretation of the Scriptures,”[10] and indulging in certain “dialectics and vain philosophies.”[11] Although he rightly pointed out that it was imperative to approach the Scriptures with humility,[12] he later stressed on the role of Church in instructing the Christians “what to think, what to believe, wherein to place our hope,” and how to live a pious life that leads them to heaven.[13] The Church was also guided by the Spirit of Christ,[14] and hence all Christians should maintain her laws and precepts.[15] This is basically affirming the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret the Scriptures, the Word of God. Not surprisingly, Calvin strongly opposed to this teaching. He inveighed against the corruption of the Church, and the greed and avarice of the ecclesiastical staff.[16] He pointed out other problems of the Church, which I will list later. On the other hand, he asserted the ultimate authority of the Word in various places. While it was important that the Church should have been guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Word should be used to examine the guidance.[17] The Church should have built her foundations on the prophets and the apostles,[18] (Eph. 2:20) not on Peter,[19] who also taught that “people are regenerated by that incorruptible seed,”[20] (1 Pet. 1:23) which is clearly the Word of God according to the context in the quoted verses. He also quoted Apostle Paul that the only sword he possessed was the Word of the Lord.[21] (Eph. 6:17) He asserted that whenever the prophets foretold the renewal of the church, they referred to the Word of God, by citing Isa. 2:3.[22] He pointed out the danger of extravagantly boasting the work of the Holy Spirit by “burying” the Word of God, as it made room for the falsehood of the Church.[23] Calvin also asserted through the person in front of the Eternal Judge that “all controversies should be decided by Thy Word.”[24] In various places, Calvin hailed the ultimate authority of the Word of God, rebuking Sadoleto’s attempt to resort the controversies to the laws and precepts of the Church. He even teased Sadoleto that it was the Catholic Church who preyed upon the pious souls with “vain philosophies,” (Col. 2:8) not the Reformers, when discussing about the preaching sermons.[25]

Sadoleto accused the Reformers of their “pride”,[26] of teaching the “heretical doctrines” out of evil intention that they did it for wealth and ambition,[27] and of justifying themselves the liberty from ecclesiastical laws and their own lusts.[28] However, Calvin defended the Reformers strongly. He used himself as an example: “had I wished to consult my own interest, I would never have left your party.”[29] He said, if the Reformers did it for their own ambition, they would stay in the Catholic Church to rise to a prominent position.[30] As a matter of fact, the Reformers maintained that the pastors should keep the wealth that suffice their own need, and the rest should be dispensed, according to the practice of the early churches. If the Reformers did it for making money, as Calvin pointed out, it would be inexpedient for them to teach this.[31] Instead, Calvin also pointed out that many Reformers were in danger because they did not align themselves with the Catholic Church.[32] He wrote that the pastors were restricted to their own duty, not to govern the Church “with a licentious and lawless authority.”[33]

Sadoleto maintained that in order to “find a place with mercy and pardon with God,” Christians should not go beyond the “opinion and authority of the Church,” set by our ancestors, and guided by the Holy Spirit.[34] In other words, in Sadoleto’s viewpoint, the Church enjoyed the ultimate authority regarding the teachings of the Word and everyone’s salvation because of the Holy Spirit in work. The tradition of the Church was so important that it was where people found salvation. However, by upholding the Word of God, Calvin rejected the ultimate authority of the Church, even though Sadoleto claimed his teachings had been approved for 1,500 years or more.[35] Calvin asserted what he said was in more agreement with ancient church than Sadoleto.[36] Calvin affirmed the honor and rank of ancient Fathers and Councils, given the Word of God was their tool of judgement.[37]

Upholding the ultimate authority of the Word of God and playing down the authority of the church, Calvin attacked a number of Catholic practices and doctrines, and stated the corresponding Protestant positions. There are three things that the safety of the Church is founded, namely, doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments. And the Catholic Church added “ceremonies” to the list.[38] Ceremonies were used to exercise the people to piety, but Calvin complained the Catholic Church used it for her glory, and the ceremonies were vitiated by many forms of superstition,[39] defeating the purpose of piety, like Judaism.[40] What the Reformers tried to do with the sacraments was to restore their native purity, which had been abolished by the ceremonies which were superstitious in nature.[41] Catholic doctrines, as Calvin said, were so “twisted, involved, tortuous, and puzzling” that the scholastic theology itself is a “secret magic” as well.[42] He attacked the emptiness of the sermons preached all around the Western Europe that the first half was usually about the “misty questions” of the schools that scared away the rude populace, and the second half contained some “sweet stories” to keep the hearers alert.[43] He pointed out the Catholic preachers hurt the pious believers with “vain philosophies.” (Col. 2:8)

Calvin defended the Protestant position of “justification by faith alone.” Sadoleto maintained that “justification by faith,” which was “the common faith of the Church.” Sins were washed away by “expiations, penances, and satisfaction.”[44] To him, faith did “not only [include] … credulity and confidence.”[45] Calvin’s and the Reformers’ position is radically different: justification was not through works or merits, but through faith in Christ alone. If a man is convinced about his iniquities, he will humble before God and “[cast] away his self-confidence”[46] He pointed out succinctly that “the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete.”[47] He summarized the hopelessness of all humankind as lost sinners and Christ being their only righteousness: “by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us.”[48] Men are reconciled with God not by merits or works, but by “gratuitous mercy.”[49] Calvin quoted Rom. 4:7 and 2 Cor. 5:19 to further defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

In response to the Protestants’ doctrine of justification by faith alone, Catholic theologians accused the Protestants of “[taking] away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness.”[50] Facing this, Calvin further argued for the doctrine by stating the inseparability of faith and work. Quoting 1 Cor. 1:30, he argued that Christ has been given to us for justification and for sanctification, and wherever there is Christ, there is the Holy Spirit, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.[51] In other words, “Christ regenerates to a blessed life those whom He justifies, and after rescuing them from the dominion of sin, hands them over to the dominion of righteousness, transforms them into the image of God, and so trains them by His Spirit into obedience to His will.”[52] Therefore, responding to Catholics and Sadoleto’s complaints, by this doctrine of justification, “lust is left with loosened reins.”[53] He cited Eph. 1:4 that Christians are elected in Christ before the creation to be holy. In 1 Thess. 4:7, Christians have not been called to impurity but to holiness.[54] These verses are more enough to prove the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which involves regeneration, sanctification, and adoption. The ignorance of this doctrine would lead to the washings of sins by penances and satisfactions, nullifying the utility of the blood of Christ regarding the redemption of man’s sins.[55] Nevertheless, Calvin agreed with Sadoleto that “love is the first and chief cause of our salvation.”[56]

Calvin also defended Reformers’ position of the Eucharist. The Catholics attacked the Protestants for “attempting to confine the Lord of the universe… within the corners of a corporeal nature with its circumscribed boundaries.”[57] Calvin pointed out that Reformers’ position was that the divine power of Christ and His essence is “diffused over all, and defined by no limits.”[58] He insightfully responded that there is a great difference between removing local presence of Christ’s body and restricting His spiritual power within bodily limits. Calvin taught that in the Lord’s Supper, flesh is truly meat and blood is truly drink, but the presence of Christ are not excluded from the Supper. He asserted that there is no transubstantiation, and the bread is not to be worshipped as Christ.[59] He condemned Catholic transubstantiation position of the Eucharist that led to superstition. He referred Sadoleto to Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus for further elaboration.

Calvin also condemned the Catholic teaching about auricular confession: the law of Innocent, which enjoins every man to pass all his sins in review before his priest annually.[60] He argued that such law has no scriptural proof. While there is an apparent humility, he cited the Apostle Paul’s teaching that “humility only is genuine which is framed in conformity to the Word of God.”[61] (Col. 2:18)

Regarding the intercession of the saints, Calvin urged Sadoleto and other Catholics to neglect this teaching, because superstition had risen from this doctrine that “the intercession of Christ was utterly erased from men’s thoughts, saints were invoked as gods…”[62] leading to the sins of idolatry.[63]

Regarding the teaching of purgatory, Calvin pointed out although ancient churches did mention the dead in their prayers, it was obvious that nothing more is about the passion of the living people felt towards the dead. It is the problem of the Catholic Church that enlarged this to a money-making business that wealth was accumulated by church’s prayer for the dead people.[64]

After disputing all Sadoleto’s accusation and defending the Reformers’ position, Calvin developed his Reformed position to the next step by further denying the ultimate authority of the Church. He accused Sadoleto and the Catholic Church of “overthrowing the ministry.”[65] The Catholic Church was well known to be corrupted in the way that the ecclesiastical staff were “active only in robbing and devouring.”[66] The Lord’s Supper lost its meaning in the mass; the worship of images as a sin of idolatry was prevalent; the sacraments were ruined by weird notions and doctrines; the abusive use of indulgences dishonored the cross of Christ; Christian liberty was crushed by man-made ecclesiastical traditions. With all these listed transgressions, Calvin asserted that the ancient Church was clearly on the Reformers’ side.[67] The Reformers did not initially sought for a revolution, but a reform within the Church. However, the adverse situation within the Catholic Church made them believe that a schism was indeed a necessity. He called the Roman Pontiff “ravening wolves.”[68] Even worse, he semi-directly called the pope the Antichrist, by citing 2 Thess. 2:4 that “the Antichrist would have his seat in no other place than in the midst of God’s sanctuary.”[69] Speaking of the pride and sins of the Catholic Church, he quoted Matt. 14:6: “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”

According to the Reformers, Calvin yielded respect and honor to the Church, in subordination to Christ the Church’s head, not the pope in Rome.[70] He proclaimed that the Reformed Christians submit to the authority of the Word of God, not the traditions of the Catholic Church.[71] The Church served at the pleasure of the establishment, but a good Christian should “deliver the oracles which they have received at the mouth of the Lord.”[72] In his reply to Sadoleto’s letter to the Genevans, Calvin tore down and condemned the ultimate authority of the Church.

Finally, Calvin discussed about the pastoral office. He agreed with Sadoleto that the pastors should be heard like Christ himself,[73] but he had to perform his own duties as instructed by the Scriptures, according to 1 Thess. 5:21 and 1 John 4:1.[74] They were not to abusively execute their power to govern for their own pleasures.[75] And the pastor holding the office of the teacher should be judged by the congregation, (1 Cor. 14:29) not to let the congregations blindly submit to them.[76] Ultimately, it is not the Church to instruct the believers, but “God alone who enlighten our minds to perceive His truth, who by His Spirit seals it on our hearts, and by His sure attestation to it confirms our conscience.”[77]

At the end of Sadoleto’s letter, he hypothesized two men in front of the dread tribunal of the sovereign Judge, stating whether they believed in Christ (which both would say yes), and what they believed.[78] The man in the Catholic faith said he obeyed the laws and precepts taught by his ancestors.[79] On the other hand, the man in the Protestant faith asserted the Church is “everywhere corrupt,” and he believed he was justified by faith alone, contrary to what the Church proclaimed, because he understood the Scriptures more than the ancient people did.[80] In Calvin’s reply, he “rewrote” the words said by the Protestant man, defending himself against the charges of the Catholics, and upholding the authority of the Word alone, echoing the slogan sola scriptura.[81]

The two letters of Sadoleto and Calvin highlighted the main controversies regarding the doctrines of the Reformation debate. Conclusively speaking, the Catholics maintained the ultimate authority of ecclesiastical tradition that stemmed from antiquity, and the unity of the Church was of utmost importance; the Reformers upheld the ultimate authority of the Word of God, i.e., the Scriptures, and denied the ultimate authority of the ecclesiastical tradition, even though they maintained that the pastors should still be heard like Christ himself, but they were judged by the congregations, with the Word of God as the golden rule. Although the Reformers did not initially intend for the division of the Church, but the corruption of the Church was so severe that they thought a schism was a necessity. Indeed, as they saw it, it was the only way to restore the native purity of the Early Churches.

[1] John C. Olin ed., A Reformation Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1966), 32.

[2] Ibid., 33.

[3] Ibid., 34.

[4] Ibid., 35.

[5] Ibid., 36.

[6] Ibid., 93.

[7] Ibid., 50.

[8] Ibid., 51.

[9] Ibid., 64.

[10] Ibid., 31.

[11] Ibid., 41.

[12] Ibid., 32.

[13] Ibid., 37.

[14] Ibid., 37, 41.

[15] Ibid., 37.

[16] Ibid., 56.

[17] Ibid., 60.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid., 77.

[20] Ibid., 60.

[21] Ibid., 78.

[22] Ibid., 60-61.

[23] Ibid., 61.

[24] Ibid., 86.

[25] Ibid., 65.

[26] Ibid., 38.

[27] Ibid., 54.

[28] Ibid., 41-42.

[29] Ibid., 54.

[30] Ibid., 56.

[31] Ibid., 56.

[32] Ibid., 80.

[33] Ibid., 76.

[34] Ibid., 37.

[35] Ibid., 62.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 92.

[38] Ibid., 63.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 64.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid., 64-65.

[43] Ibid., 65.

[44] Ibid., 37.

[45] Ibid., 36.

[46] Ibid., 66.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid., 66-67.

[49] Ibid., 67.

[50] Ibid., 68.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid., 68-69.

[54] Ibid., 69.

[55] Ibid., 69-70.

[56] Ibid., 69.

[57] Ibid., 70.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid., 71.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., 72.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid., 73.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid., 74.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 75.

[69] Ibid., 76.

[70] Ibid., 75.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid., 77.

[73] Ibid., 77.

[74] Ibid., 76.

[75] Ibid., 77.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid., 79.

[78] Ibid., 42.

[79] Ibid., 43.

[80] Ibid., 44-45.

[81] Ibid., 82-90.

Continue reading “On the Reformation Debate between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin”

Reviewing St. Augustine’s “On Christian Teaching”, Book III

The Book III of St. Augustine’s On Christian Teaching is a follow-up on his Book II. In the Platonic notion of things and signs, both Books II (see previous entry) and III are on signs: interpreting what the passages in the Scriptures signify. Both books concern the interpretation of the Scripture. Book III is more specific, as it is on distinguishing literal and metaphorical words, and the hermeneutics. And he wrote like present-day Richard Hays. There are a lot of ambiguities in the text, and St. Augustine laid out a few rules about how to interpret them.

He started with the first rule, the “Rule of Faith,” originated from the early church fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian. He did not write it out as it was known in early church and early Roman Catholicism, but it is quoted below:

“… the whole Church believes ‘In One God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and the seas and all that is therein, and in one Christ Jesus the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit who through the prophets preached the dispensations and the comings and the virgin birth and the passion, and the rising from the dead and the assumption into heaven in his flesh of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, and his coming from heaving in the glory of the Father… to raise up all flesh.’”[1]

And Tertullian wrote down the same idea as well.[2] Then St. Augustine wrote that after confirming the compatibility with the faith, the readers should consult the context.

After that, he raised the issues with punctuations, which were not found in the original texts. Then he mentioned the use of percontatio and interrogatio, citing the passages on election and predestination in Romans 8 as an example.[3]

He then discussed at length regarding the Christian liberty, which, unlike the Jewish peoples, did not see signs as things. He saw it as a kind of “spiritual slavery,”[4] which was liberated by the Christian faith. He argued that the confusion of things and signs, or a failure to distinguish literal or metaphorical usage in the Scriptures, led to this spiritual slavery.

He raised another principle: “matters which seem like wickedness to the unenlightened, whether merely spoken or actually performed, whether attributed to God or to people whose holiness is commended to us, are entirely figurative.”[5] An example that he discussed at length is the practice of polygamy. Monogamy was widely practiced in his time, but in the ancient times, polygamy had been regarded fine even for practice by righteous men. In his opinion, sex was merely for procreation, and it was a lustful sin to have sexual intercourse for gratification. He cited an example, King David, who practiced polygamy, but clearly committed sins by going into Bathsheba for sexual gratification. Christians nowadays do not generally agree with him, but most of us agree that social norms and practice were important to interpret the Scriptures figuratively. However, “if the expression is a prescriptive one, and either forbids wickedness or wrongdoing, or enjoins self-interest or kindness, it is not figurative.”[6]

He also suggested some verses are applicable to all people, but some to a certain class of people, citing Matt. 19:12 and Ecclus.[7] 7:27. He further extended that his argument that not all Old Testament standard of sins can be transferred to contemporary livings, which, to even modern evangelicals, is a bit liberal.

He then talked about the multiple meanings of a word in the text, in several text, or even within one sentence. I think this is one of the parts of his hermeneutical approach that led to inappropriate allegorical interpretations, and over-spiritualizing things.

He emphasized again the importance of learning the original languages, the grammar, the use of figures of speech. (e.g., irony and antiphrasis)

He finally listed Tyconius’ The Book of Rules, the seven rules that interpret the ambiguous text of the Scriptures. He deemed these rules are helpful, but not always necessary. I am not listing the seven rules, but what is interesting to note is that his view about Israel is similar to the modern-day one-God people view, instead of the viewpoint of premillennial dispensationalism.[8]

[1] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed., The Penguin History of the Church, (London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books, 1993), 44.

[2] Tertullian, “The Rule of Faith,” in New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337, ed. James Stevenson, 165. (London, United Kingdom: SPCK, 1987.)

[3] Saint Augustine, On Christian Teaching, trans. E. P. H. Green, Oxford World’s Classics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), 70.

[4] Ibid., 72.

[5] Ibid., 77.

[6] Ibid., 80.

[7] Book of Ecclesiasticus or Wisdom of Sirach, one of the books in the Apocrypha.

[8] Saint Augustine, On Christian Teaching, 94; Cornelis Venema, “The Church and Israel: The Issue,” Tabletalk Magazine, October 1st, 2012, accessed September 6, 2016, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-church-and-israel-the-issue/.

Continue reading “Reviewing St. Augustine’s “On Christian Teaching”, Book III”

The Theological Outline of the Doctrine of Scripture

In my previous blog post, I summarized the biblical outline of the doctrine of scripture, according to Timothy Ward’s Words of Life. The biblical outline is awesome and easy to understand as it is directly deduced from the biblical data. In chapter 3 of Ward’s book, he gave a theological outline, systemizing the biblical teaching about the relation between the scripture and the triune God, with the help of speech-act theory in the philosophy of language.

Speech-Act Theory

Speech-act theory rejects the widespread notion that the language itself is merely a logical constructs for information flow, but it regards language “as a means by which one person performs actions in relation to another.” (page 57) Richard Briggs said: “when we speak or write, we do things with it – performing acts…” [Briggs 2003] He listed five basic categories of speech acts: declaratives, commissives, directives, assertives, and expressives. And the speech acts theory complies with the nature of the Scripture, as the Word of God, that the text comes with action.

Scripture and the Father

As it has been discussed in the previous post, the act of Father’s Word includes the creative work of the Universe, the revelation, and the redemption. All these were performed through His Word in the scripture. He makes covenant with us, through His Word as the Scripture. As the Scripture has warranted, the Scripture is equivalent to the Word of God, with the recognition that His Word comes with His action, and obeying Him is obeying His Word etc., as in the speech-act theory. And “God is both semantically present in the Scripture, and is personally present in the person of the Spirit.” (page 65) And “when we speak of Scripture as a mode of God’s presence, we are asserting that it is the speech acts of Scripture that God reveals himself by being semantically present to us, as he promises, warns, rebukes, reassures, and so on.”

Scripture and the Son

The Gospel of John asserts that the Word is the person of the Son in the first verse: “In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) His incarnation, or the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14), marks an important theological teaching. The Son lived in the world, and performed acts. And after His ascension, the Holy Spirit continued the acts of Jesus Christ to complete the text of the Scripture. The Word, again, is both the words and the actions.

On the other hand, while the Scripture is the Word of God, it serves the Christ too. The uniqueness of Christ is that He is also the Savior and our Lord.

Some theologians like to draw an analogy of the divine and human nature of Christ to the nature of the Scripture. While it is debatable whether the analogy helps, it is important to recognize that the Scripture is fully divine (as God is the origin), and at the same time, fully human. This can be described with the speech-act theory.

Scripture and the Spirit

The three primary actions of the Spirit with regard to Scripture are: the inspiration, the preservation, and the illumination.

The inspiration of the Scripture by the Spirit means that God is the author of the Scripture, with proof text referred to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. The Holy Spirit is the agent of authoring the Scripture, “… knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) And the word “inspiration” comes from the Greek word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16, but now the theologians know that it can be translated more correctly to “God-breathed.” This refers to the origin of the Scripture, instead of the effects of the Spirit to the readers. In the formation of the Scripture, God was active, and human authors were passive. The Scripture is fully divine and human, and it displays individual authors’ temperament in ordinary human languages.

The preservation of the Scripture by the Spirit refers to the copy and the transmission of Scripture, which unavoidably involves human mistakes. However, with the preserving work of the Spirit, we are confident that the essential teaching of the Scripture has been transmitted correctly, even through translation. The Spirit was also involved in the formation of the canon of the Scripture, which gained remarkable rapid recognition among the early churches.

The illumination of the Scripture by the Spirit is based on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, and 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:6. Ward cited Francis Turretin, an influential Reformed theologian in the 17th century, about his belief: “the Bible itself… is the argument on account of which he believes; the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause and principle that induces him to believe; and the church is the instrument and means through which he comes to believe.” (page 92-93) It is not a logical deduction but God’s work on our characters.

IMG_20160220_173226
Continue reading “The Theological Outline of the Doctrine of Scripture”

Vocational Calling: Inspiration from Seales’ Research on Restoring Ancient Biblical Scrolls

Christians in the Reformed circle like talking about our vocations and its relation to redeeming the culture. In Timothy Keller’s Every Good Endeavor, he outlined the redemptive history of the Bible, and how we respond to His calling through our vocations. If you haven’t read this book, I highly recommend it.

I am grateful to attend a talk organized jointly by Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) and Capital Fellows at McLean Presbyterian Church on Oct 29, 2015. The speaker was Dr. Brent Seales, Professor and Chair of Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky. His work is on computer vision and image recovery. With his expertise, he and his colleagues managed to recover the text from the scrolls in Ein Gedi that had been deemed beyond recoverable. When I asked him how, in addition to his research, he dealt with writing grants and publish, he said “balance,” and insisted as it is the calling. He mentioned he failed the NSF grants for this research three times before he applied successfully.

Recovered text from a burnt scrolls in Ein Gedi (taken from PastHorizon)
Recovered text from a burnt scrolls in Ein Gedi (taken from PastHorizon)

From the normative perspective, with a clear calling, we work diligently, with humility, to strive for excellence for the glory of God. It is what we are called to. We have more than enough theology regarding the redemption in the biblical theology (BT).

From the situational perspective, our society, the academia in Seales’ case, is hostile to Christians. Some of our work are not appreciated although we think they are groundbreaking from the Christians’ perspective. But facing this, we have a stronger reason to strive for excellence.

From the existential perspective, one’s aptitude and passion are the deciding factors on how to choose a vocation. We are equipped by God with different gifts and talents for building up His church and His disciples. For Seales’ case, it is his technological and managerial skills. Mine is my scholarly passion and quantitative ability.

There are a lot of great examples of work and faith. Jimmy Lin, Founder of Rare Genomics Institute (RGI) and Director of Cancer Genomics in NCI, has been working on bioinformatics and cancer genomics for the cure of rare diseases. He is a faithful Christian.

Continue reading “Vocational Calling: Inspiration from Seales’ Research on Restoring Ancient Biblical Scrolls”

Scattered Thoughts on Cultural Formation and Ecclesial Colleges

Glass Windows on the Chapel of Duke University
Glass Windows on the Chapel of Duke University

Recently I read James Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom about Christian education, worship, and cultural formation. Dr. Smith is a professor of philosophy in Calvin College. In this book, Dr. Smith argued that to make disciples of Jesus Christ, we have to recognize that humans are not thinkers who think to understand, or believers who believe to understand, but lovers who desire or love to understand. And “our loves and desires are aimed and directed by habits that dispose us to be the kind of people aimed at certain visions of the good life.” This “love to understand” understanding is contrary to the “know to understand” understanding.

Dr. Smith first argued that humans are lover that aim at certain visions of good life (chapter 1). Then to cultivate the desires and the worldview of people, he described the importance of liturgies (chapter 2). He then pointed out a lot of secular cultural practices are in fact liturgies although we might not recognize, and practiced “cultural exegesis” to read into the visions behind the cultural practices (chapter 3). Then Dr. Smith switched back to Christian worship, and argued that Christian worship is fundamental to shaping the worldview of the disciples (chapter 4). He then went by each step in a formal Christian worship, and described how they shaped our desires and worldview (chapter 5). Finally, with everything built up, Dr. Smith explained “new monasticism,” and outlined his vision of what an ideal Christian college, or an ecclesial college, is like (chapter 6).

At this point, I have some scattered thoughts on what Dr. Smith has been discussed:

  • Dr. Smith stressed on the existential perspective of how the worldviews form in human beings. By saying human as lover, not thinker, he denied the importance of the normative perspective of the formation. I agree with Dr. Smith that liturgies, or habit building, are effective and important in forming one’s desire, but I argue that it is not the only way. We can see it from our own experience as recipients of education, we understand not only through hands-on work (existential), but also through lectures and informative classes (normative). The Jews also teach their kids about the Law of God, and discuss about them lest they forget. And through our church history, doctrines were established a few centuries after Christ (after Christians’ suffering experience), but then people can attain the theistic worldview not only through liturgies but also the teaching of doctrine (situational). The body of knowledge has three perspectives as a whole, and they are the same thing, as in Frame’s triperspectivalistic framework.
  • The existential perspective of worldview formation is important but not sufficient, as a lot of sects, cults, and other religions have certain liturgies that get people away from it. A non-Christian worldview can have practices similar to Christianity, but conveyed a different teachings. Jehovah’s Witnesses and LDS very often carried a lot of similar cultural values with Reformed Churches, but the differences are too fundamental. Formative education is necessary, through discussion, lectures, or creeds, to enforce the understanding fundamental doctrines so that we believe in the real God.
  • Dr. Smith’s vision of an ideal ecclesial college (he refused to use the term “Christian college” to avoid readers’ confusion with the existing Christian colleges which function like other Ivy Leagues simply with an additional Christian perspectives) is a form of monasticism. He also claimed that and called it “new monasticism.” This kind of schools existed only in the Middle Ages, when most of the populations are Christians, and the societies can accept the notion of school as a place of spiritual formation instead of the transfer of knowledge and skills. However, such schools cannot be even financially sustainable as very few donors would have the same or similar visions about education; and no parents and students would want to go to such schools as they still need to make a living after receiving education. They need the skills for their future vocations.
  • I agree with Dr. Smith’s observation that current schools focus too much on information but not formation. Ultimately, it is the spiritual formation that is essential for one to live according to the law of God. School is an important venue for spiritual formation.
  • While the practices he described about his vision of ecclesial school are important as Dr. Smith stated, I believe they are more effectively carried out at families. The Book of Deuteronomy and Proverbs speaks a lot about family education, with numerous proof-texts, but with little school education.

P.S.: This is an intermediate thought on a review of James Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom based on John Frame’s multiperspectivalism.

Duke University
Duke University

Continue reading “Scattered Thoughts on Cultural Formation and Ecclesial Colleges”