School Paper: “Denominational Identity Essay” (Fall 2010)

This was a paper in which we were required to defend our personal denominational tradition, whatever that may have been. I’m probably less passionate about “non-denominationalism” now than I was then, though I think some of the passion exhibited here had a lot to do with just giving the professor what I figured he was looking for.

In the early days of Bible college, I was obsessed with learning, and using, new vocabulary words, a number of which make an appearance here. Appellation. Delineate. Preclude. Predicate. Ostensible. Remonstrative. Also, the things I say here about the mode of baptism are pretty funny considering what I’ve written on that topic since then.

Denominational Identity Essay

Baptist History

November 6, 2010

Introduction

I grew up in a non-denominational church atmosphere. As the name would imply, non-denominational simply means “unaffiliated with a denomination.” Contrary to common assumptions, the appellation is in no way intended to connote hostility or resentment toward denominational Christians, though many in the non-denominational camp have sadly made this a justifiable misconception. The general attitude of the people in my home church, however, has never been one of haughty superiority and I am thankful. Outside of our home congregation, my family regularly visited denominational churches of every kind. While we remained persuaded in our conviction that Christ did not want his Church to be divided, this never kept us from enjoying regular fellowship with our brothers and sisters affiliated with official denominations.

Non-denominationalism

It seems appropriate to begin with a defense of what is clearly the most distinguishing mark of my ecclesiastical tradition, namely, our lack of denominational affiliation. I define the word denomination as a group of individual, like-minded congregations who join together under an official organizational structure for purposes such as financial support and the synergetic effect afforded by cooperation. While the motives of these denominational bodies are undoubtedly laudable, I argue that the formulation of such organizational entities is unbiblical and conducive to the disunity of Christ’s church.

Denominations are non-biblical in the sense that no scriptural evidence can be presented for the legitimacy of Christ’s people dividing themselves into organizations to the exclusion of other brothers and sisters in Christ. Non-denominational Christians maintain a strong conviction “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Denominations are also unbiblical in the sense that they actively work against the ideal prescribed for the Church in Scripture. Paul urged the Corinthian church to “be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He reprimands anyone who would seek to partition the body of Christ with an incisive rhetorical question: “Is Christ divided?” (1:13) Paul later contends that division betrays fleshly tendencies rather than spiritual maturity (3:1-5). The conviction of my church to be unaffiliated with an established denomination reflects our desire to promote the kind of unity for which Christ prayed on the night of his death: “I do not ask for these [twelve disciples] only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:20-21). The unity of those who follow Christ should portray the unity of the very triune Godhead; a portrayal that is difficult to achieve with a denominationally divided Church.

General Doctrine

Non-denominational churches have a poor reputation for doctrinal apathy. This, however, has thankfully not been my own experience as my home church has always stressed the importance of sound doctrine. A general and representative sampling of our theological convictions can be delineated in our doctrines of God, justification, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper.

Trinity

My church has always firmly upheld an orthodox view on the triune nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that God is one and exists in three co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. While the word “trinity” is never used in the Bible, the idea signified by the word is found pervasively throughout Scripture.

The fundamental premise of the doctrine of the Trinity is Scripture’s clear revelation that God is one. In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses announces to the people of Israel the statutes by which they are to live and begins with the proclamation that “the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). James identified the oneness of God as a fundamental axiom that even demons do not deny (Jas 2:19; cf. 1 Tim 2:5, Rom. 3:30). Arguably no other truth is more basic to the Christian faith than the truth that there is only one God.

In addition to this unambiguous teaching that God is one, the Bible also speaks of plurality in the Godhead. This is a truth that is revealed most clearly in the New Testament, but evidence for a plurality of divine persons can also be seen in the Old Testament. One example is found in the creation account of Genesis wherein God states, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26; cf. 3:22, 11:7). The use of the plural pronoun rather than the singular indicates a plurality of persons in God. This plurality at which the Old Testament merely hints is fully revealed in the New Testament as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Each of these distinct persons is equally God. The Father is God (1 Cor. 8:6), the Son is God (John 1:1, Col. 2:8-9), and the Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4, John 3:5-6 with 1 John 4:7).

Justification By Faith

Justification is an act of God in which he declares as righteous those who put their faith in Jesus Christ. This does not mean that the sinner becomes intrinsically righteous or meritorious, but that the perfect merits of Christ are imputed to the one who trusts in Christ’s finished work. Paul spoke of this alien righteousness in his letter to the Philippian church: “that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). This doctrine is diametrically opposed to the idea of earning justification through works of the law. Paul clearly taught that “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). Justification is received through faith alone apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28).

At this point, the familiar reader of Scripture may stumble over the contention of James that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24). James is here using the word justify in a different sense. As evidenced by the context (condemnation of faith that doesn’t evidence itself by works), James is using the term justify to mean something similar to the word verify. In other words, his argument is that the legitimacy of one’s faith is verified by works and not by a mere faith without works, which is dead (v. 17). We are declared righteous in the sight of God by faith alone, but we are seen to be righteous in the sight of men by the works which accompany true saving faith. James, rather than contradicting Paul, profoundly complements the teaching that we are justified by faith.

Baptism

Baptism is the ordinance in which a new believer is immersed into water for the purpose of publicly identifying themselves with the body of Christ. The proper mode of baptism is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but immersion appears to best fit the biblical accounts of baptism. Mark’s gospel records that John the Baptist baptized “in the Jordan river” (Mark 1:5), which appears to preclude the notion of mere sprinkling as practiced in some Protestant traditions. In John’s gospel, we’re told that the reason John the Baptist baptized in a certain area was “because water was plentiful there.” Since neither sprinkling nor pouring requires much water, this lends support to the view that the proper mode of baptism is immersion.

Christians have also historically disagreed over the question of who should be baptized. The testimony of Scripture seems clear that only those who have exercised a conscious faith in Christ should be baptized. Luke records that “those who received [Peter’s] word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). Later, in light of a surge of new believers, Peter asks the question, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we have?” (Acts 10:47) These passages seem to indicate that baptism is predicated upon believing the gospel.

The Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper is the second ordinance of Christianity which, unlike baptism, is observed many times throughout the life of the believer. This ordinance corresponds to Christ’s ostensibly bizarre teaching in the sixth chapter of John: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54). The institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in all of the synoptic gospels (Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:18-20).

The principal purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper is to remember the death of Christ. Jesus explained that the broken bread represented his body and the wine his blood (Matt. 26:26-28). When we eat the bread and drink from the cup, we are remembering Christ’s broken body and the blood he shed for our sins. Paul wrote that as we continually observe the Lord’s Supper, we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). As believers, we take great joy in having the privilege to participate in this memorial supper as we wait for the return of our Savior.

Concluding Remarks

While maintaining a respect for my brothers and sisters in other denominations, I do not anticipate becoming part of another ecclesiastical tradition; at least not in the foreseeable future. I have always been suspicious of what I believe is an unhealthy emphasis of Pentecostal churches on miraculous gifts such as tongues and healing. Methodist denominations are pervasively Arminian, which is troublesome at best for a Calvinist such as me. While I deeply admire the Reformed traditions of Presbyterianism, I cannot in good conscience concede the legitimacy of infant baptism. I do, however, maintain much doctrinal agreement with Baptist denominations, and while I remain non-denominational at heart, I am currently active in a local Baptist congregation where I enjoy valuable fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

This class has been extremely helpful in forcing me to think critically about my ecclesiastical traditions and to understand them in light of the historic, organizational methods of the Baptist denomination. After the first class lecture, I had a fresh understanding of what it meant to be a Baptist and I realized that “baptistic” was a legitimately helpful way to describe my own non-denominational tradition. I am more thankful now for the work that God has done through Baptists over the past four centuries, and I have a deeper appreciation for those remonstrative Christians on whose shoulders I stand today.

School Paper: “Rulers and Justice” (Summer 2010)

I thought it might be fun to revisit some of the major papers that I wrote in college and seminary, and publish them here. Many of them are complete hunks of junk, but some of them aren’t so bad. This one is actually the first research paper that I wrote in college. It explores the theme of justice in ancient Greek literature. I did not choose the topic; it was assigned. And I was profoundly uninterested in it, which typically makes for a lame paper.

Rulers and Justice

History of Ideas 2

July 26, 2010

Introduction

The Latin phrase Rex Lex (king is law) has been used to designate the form of government in which the king essentially is the law making him unaccountable to the law. This governmental structure is described sympathetically by Aegidius Romanus when he writes, “The law is a kind of inanimate prince; the prince, however, a kind of animate law. And in so far as the animate exceeds the inanimate the king or prince must exceed the law.”1 In other words, if ever the will of the king is in disharmony with the written law, the will of the king holds higher authority.

The opposite of Rex Lex is, of course, Lex Rex (law is king). Samuel Rutherford argued for the superiority of this governmental structure over against the pernicious and unbiblical despotism of a Rex Lex structure. He maintained that the king’s power in a Rex Lex government “is a supreme and highest power . . . to do above, without, or contrary to a law or reason, which is unreasonable . . . When God’s word speaketh of the power of kings and judges . . . there is not any footstep or any ground for such a power.”2

Charles M. Bakewell states that in Plato’s Republic the just state is one in which “each citizen [performs] the task for which he is best fitted, with an eye to the welfare of the whole.”3 It is imperative that this principle apply not only to the citizens of a given society but to the leadership of that society as well. Rulers cannot be free to define justice in whatever way they deem fit. Rather, justice must restrain the authority of the ruler. If a ruler has an absolute power which allows him to legislate whatever suits him at a given time, it will lead to an unhealthy society (or as we will see in Plato’s case, an unhealthy soul).

Numerous examples of the difficulties engendered by a Rex Lex governmental structure can be seen in the poets, playwrights, and philosophers of the ancient world. A clear pattern is conspicuous and consistent, beginning with a ruler who exercises absolute power and resulting in an amalgam of undesirable ramifications. Three examples in particular are the oppressive reign of Gilgamesh in the city of Uruk, Homer’s depiction of the egocentric demands of Agamemnon at the siege of Troy, and the discussion of the development of a tyrannical man in Plato’s Republic. In each of these three instances any objective concept of justice is sacrificed or ignored for the sake of fulfilling the subjective will of the man in power.

Gilgamesh

Discussions of the problems created by a form of government in which the king is above the law date back earlier than the twentieth century B.C. The Epic of Gilgamesh tells the story of the ancient king Gilgamesh who ruled the city of Uruk. The opening lines of the epic contain much acclaim and praise for this king. He is called “superior to other kings, a warrior lord of great stature, a hero born of Uruk, . . . a strong net, the protection of his men, . . . perfect in strength.”4 He is even purported, also, to be two-thirds divine.

These words of commendation, however, last only temporarily. The anonymous author soon “rewinds” the narrative back to a time when the people of Uruk did not think so highly of their king. In transitioning to this prior historical context, the author makes mention of a sexually immoral practice that Gilgamesh, as king, engages in. The reader is informed that “Gilgamesh will not leave young girls alone, the daughters of warriors, the brides of young men.”5 These words seem to indicate that Gilgamesh enforced a kind of jus primae noctus, a Latin phrase which means “right of the first night” (also referred to as droit de seigneur, the French equivalent). This gave the king a right to sleep with newly-wed brides on their wedding night.

Jeffrey H. Tigay discusses this feature of the Gilgamesh epic and maintains that while we can’t be certain whether jus primae noctis was the exact nature of Gilgamesh’s oppression of Uruk, “it is hard to believe that jus primae noctis was not at least part of what is suggested.”6 If Tigay is right then it’s no wonder that we soon witness the misery of the people of Uruk as they begin pleading to the goddess Aruru, beseeching her to create a rival to match Gilgamesh: “Now create someone for [Gilgamesh], to match the ardour of his energies! Let them be regular rivals, and let Uruk be allowed peace!” While it’s uncertain whether the events of Gilgamesh are entirely historical, this scenario nevertheless provides a clear example of the problems which ensue when an objective concept of justice is abandoned in favor of preserving the absolute power of the king. A king who rules in such a way that does not acknowledge the welfare or common good of the whole will inevitably see the loyalty of his people dwindle.

Agamemnon

Homer’s Iliad is an epic poem that recounts the events which took place in the final year of the ten-year siege of the city of Troy. At the beginning of the story Chryses, a priest of Apollo, asks Agamemon, king of Argos and leader of the Greek army, to return his daughter Chryseis whom Agamemnon had captured as a war-prize. When Agamemnon refuses the priest’s request, the Greeks begin to be afflicted by a plague. When the prophet Calchas informs Agamemnon that the plague will lift when he returns the daughter of Chryses, Agamenon becomes furious and the reader begins to observe how his Rex Lex mentality drives the decisions that follow.

Agamemnon initially seems to act justly when he agrees to send Chryseis back to her father: “I’ll give her back, if that’s what’s best. I don’t want to see the army destroyed like this.”7 This acquiescence would mean the lifting of the plague thus making it the best course of action for everyone. However, he expresses his ultimate dissatisfaction when he immediately follows up with orders: “But I want another prize ready for me right way. I’m not going to be the only Greek without a prize, it wouldn’t be right.”8 Francis M. Cornford writes that the “The Greek word for just has as many senses as the English right”9 and so we might just as easily understand Agamemnon as saying that his own lack of a prize wouldn’t be just.

Justice, however, is the last of Agamemnon’s concerns as he later takes for himself Briseis, the war-prize of Achilles, the mightiest warrior of the Greek army. This proves to be an unwise decision as it incites the Myrmidons, Achilles’ battalion, to temporarily back out of the war. In the absence of the Myrmidon ranks the Greeks take unanticipated casualties. Agamemnon initially seemed to be acting for the common good of his soldiers when he returned Chryseis thereby lifting the plague, but when he decides to steal Achilles’ war-prize as compensation it leads to a prolonged military struggle which results in countless unnecessary deaths. Inconsistent justice is essentially injustice and yields the same detrimental consequences. The historicity of Iliad, like Gilgamesh, is debatable and the justice of owning a female slave as a war-prize is itself questionable to say the least, but this particular scene in Iliad provides a good example of the problems caused by a governmental structure in which the king defines what is just.

Plato’s Tyrannical Man

The aim of Plato’s Republic, while largely a discussion about the characteristics of a utopia or ideal state, is to arrive at a comprehensive definition of the virtue of justice. After a few unsatisfactory attempts at defining the elusive essence of said virtue, the three interlocutors, lead by Socrates (who presumably represents the view of Plato), decide that understanding justice on a broad societal level is the best way to understand justice on an individual level.10 As Socrates famously states, the city is the soul writ large. Cornford writes that “little as Plato valued what he has described as democratic liberty, no democrat could surpass him in detestation of the despotism (tyranny) which is the triumph of injustice and the very negation of the liberty he did believe in.”11 Socrates describes tyranny as the most unjust of all governmental structures and therefore the tyrannical soul is the most unjust of all souls.

Book nine contains a lengthy and psychologically insightful analysis of the man with a tyrannical soul. If a tyrannical state is one governed, not by justice, but by its desires, then a tyrannical man is one who is likewise driven by his fleshly desires. Socrates explains that “a man becomes tyrannical in the precise sense of the term when either his nature or his way of life or both of them together make him drunk, filled with erotic desire, and mad.”12 When all of this man’s money is gone, the “crowd of desires that [have] nested within him inevitably shout in protest”13, paralleling the crowd of unhappy citizens who live within a tyrannically governed state. The tyrannical man will stop at nothing to insure that these desires within him are satisfied, even if this means stealing from his parents or looting temples. His desires “live like a tyrant within him, in complete anarchy and lawlessness as his sole ruler, and drives him, as if he were a city, to dare anything that will provide sustenance for itself.”14 His own reason functioning as the ruler of his soul, this tyrannical man mirrors, on a personal level, the flaws seen previously in the despotic reigns of Gilgamesh and Agamemnon.

Conclusion

Juan de Mariana pithily states that “nothing is better than to have the Prince restrained by the laws, nothing a heavier curse than that he be free from them.”15 Plato was convinced that “the having and doing of one’s own”16 was an essential component of justice. From the works of ancient writers three illustrations have been seen of the consequences that follow a neglect of this crucial component. Gilgamesh encroached on that which was not his own when he violated newly-wed brides as an exercise of his absolute power. The result was an oppressed and desperate people. Agamemnon, by way of his Rex Lex authority, took that which was not his own when he stole the war-prize of Achilles. The result was a prolonged military struggle which cost many lives. Plato’s tyrannical man is willing to take what doesn’t belong to him in order to satisfy the desires which drive him. The result is an unhealthy soul. These examples serve to illustrate what was argued in the introduction, namely that if a man is free to define justice in whatever way he deems appropriate, it will inevitably lead to despondency and distress in a society or soul.

Notes

1. Aegidius Romanus, quoted in Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 134.

2. Samuel Rutherfod, Lex Rex; or, The Law and the Prince [book on-line] (Oxford University, 1843, accessed 22 July 2010), 106; available from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jtYDAAAAQAAJ&dq; Internet.

3. Charles M. Bakewell, introduction to Plato, Republic, trans. by Benjamin Jowett (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), xxxviii.

4. “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” in Myths from Mesopotamia, rev. ed., trans. Stephanie Dalley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 51.

5. Ibid., 52.

6. Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1982), 184.

7. Homer, Iliad, trans. Stanley Lombardo (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), 4.

8. Ibid., 4-5.

9. Francis M. Cornford, introduction to “Book I” in The Republic of Plato, trans. Francis M. Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), 1.

10. Plato Republic 368c-369a.

11. Francis M. Cornford, introduction to “Chapter XXXII” in The Republic of Plato, trans. Francis M. Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), 287 (emphasis mine).

12. Plato Republic 573c.

13. Ibid. 573e.

14. Ibid. 574e.

15. Juan de Mariana, The King and the Education of the King, trans. George A. Moore (Washington D.C.: The Country Dollar Press, 1948), 119.

16. Plato Republic 434a.

Inspired Grocery Lists

In discussions about the canon of the New Testament, it’s common to hear the sentiment that not everything an apostle wrote would have been considered inspired Scripture. After all, are we to think that even the apostle Paul’s grocery lists were inspired by God? Take these remarks from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, for example:

“Of course, this does not mean that everything an apostle wrote, including even grocery lists and receipts for business transactions, would be considered Scripture. We are speaking here of writings done when acting in the role of an apostle and giving apostolic instructions to churches and to individual Christians (such as Timothy or Philemon).” (p. 63, fn. 27)

I do think there’s an element of truth to be found in that sentiment. But at the same time, it’s plainly the case that there are parts of the New Testament, specifically in Paul’s letters, that are remarkably mundane. Take 2 Timothy 4:13, for example:

“When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.”

What do we have in this verse? Well, essentially what we have is an inspired grocery list. It’s very ordinary. It doesn’t have an air of official apostolic authority. It’s not deeply spiritual or ecclesiastical. It’s just a simple request. And yet we believe that it’s inspired Scripture.

Here someone might say that this “grocery list” is inspired only by virtue of its being included as part of the whole letter to Timothy, and so we can still maintain that a stand-alone grocery list certainly wouldn’t have made the cut. And maybe that’s true, but it’s still interesting to me that something as mundane as a grocery list can be inspired.

New Testament Survey: Resources

Course Resources

Course Syllabus: http://bit.ly/1KjqRux (updated Sep. 16)
Quiz Preparation Aids: http://bit.ly/1VZtc6f (updated Sep. 17)
Raiford Road Church Library Catalog

Transmission/Textual Criticism

Dan Wallace, “New Testament Reliability”
A talk on the reliability of the text of the New Testament.

Dan Wallace, “The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism”
This is a series of mostly short videos explaining the basics of textual criticism. It gives a really helpful overview. Wallace is a top-notch scholar.

Kurt Eichenwald, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin”
This article is written from a hostile perspective. Eichenwald is not a New Testament scholar, and this piece was mainly written for publicity (which it got plenty of). As such, it’s hardly even worth reading in its entirety, but it’s a good example of the kinds of claims that skeptics will often make about the New Testament.

If you do decide to read the Eichenwald article, you can wash the taste out of your mouth afterward by reading some of these responses that were offered by real New Testament scholars:

Michael Kruger, “A Christmas Present from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 1)”

Michael Kruger, “A Christmas Gift from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 2)”

Dan Wallace, “Predictable Christmas Fare: Newsweek’s Tirade against the Bible”

Gospels

David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels?

Term Paper Sources (Free)

A. T. Robertson, Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew

–––
I will continue to add more resources as we work our way through the semester.

Cloud and Fire

In Exodus, after the people of Israel had left Egypt, the Lord led them around in a pillar of cloud and fire. These were not two pillars, but one, which took the form of a cloud by day and of fire by night. Perhaps it gradually morphed from one form to the other as the sun set and rose. When the Egyptians were bearing down upon the Israelites, the pillar moved from in front of the Israelites to behind them, protecting them from the Egyptians, which would seem to indicate that the pillar was considerably sizeable.

The text suggests that this pillar was directly the work of an angel: “Then the angel of God who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them” (Ex. 14:19). This angel could be the preincarnate Christ, considering what Jude says (at least in some manuscripts): “Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt” (Jude 5). In Scripture, “the angel of God” or “the angel of the Lord” often appears to be uniquely significant, and set apart from other angelic beings.