Presbyterian Guardian Online Archive

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church recently announced the publication of an online archive for The Presbyterian Guardian (1935-1979). All 611 issues can be downloaded individually, and the entire archive can be downloaded as one large PDF (~1 GB).

This is a welcome resource not only for historians and historical theologians, but also for the third generation of upcoming OPC leaders, many of whom, like myself, were not reared in Presbyterian faith or practice. The Guardian is a large part of our small denomination’s story, and to ignore this publication is to distance ourselves from our own identity. As we seek to advance the vanguard, we ought not remove the rearguard–the pens of the patroi tou pistou whose steady hands laid the foundation upon which we seek to build.

Calvin Confronts Caroli’s Calumny: The 1537 Trinitarian Controversy and its Ecclesiastical and Theological Significance

Summary

In 1537 a Roman Catholic priest and professor, Peter Caroli, who himself had left the Roman Church multiple times to support the Protestant cause only to return again each time to Rome, accused John Calvin and the Protestant Reformers of trinitarian heresy. Caroli’s main arguments were based upon the Reformers’ unwillingness to subscribe to the ancient creeds of the church and their refusal to use extra-biblical terminology such as “trinity” in their teaching. Calvin disputes Caroli over a protracted year of five disputations and synods, strongly condemning the Caroli’s calumny.

The 1537 Caroli affair is a significant event in Calvin’s life and in the historical development of the Reformers’ doctrine of the Trinity. On the former, although Calvin easily won the disputes, his ad hominem tactics and apparent (though not substantial) disdain for traditional trinitarian formulations caused public distrust, a sentiment which eventually led to his expulsion from Geneva the following year

On the latter, Calvin successfully upheld the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura against Caroli’s contemptuous attempt to subvert the Reformation by means of demanding submission to church tradition. Furthermore, these disputes provided impetus for the Reformers to clarify their exegetical basis for the Trinity and their qualified rejection of patristic and scholastic trinitarian formulations, a clarification necessary for the Reformers’ subsequent disputes with growing antitrinitarian movements. Calvin’s confrontation with Caroli, therefore, reveals Calvin not as one who rejects trinitarian orthodoxy, but rather as one who rejects ecclesiastical tyranny.

Viewed as an event in the organic historical development of the Reformed doctrine of the Trinity, the 1537 Caroli affair emerges as a transition event from what Richard Muller describes as the “earlier” and “later” stages in the dogmatic development. Such an organic perspective allows us to avoid Caroli’s error on the one hand and uncritical hagiography on the other.

Read the Paper

• Calvin Confronts Caroli (.PDF; 11 pp.; 138 KB)
• Calvin Confronts Caroli (.ODT; 11 pp.; 30 KB)

Annotated Bibliography

The following is a partial list of works I found helpful for researching this topic. See the “Works Cited” page for a complete listing.

Barth’s lectures on the life of Calvin contain a lengthy section on the Caroli affair in which Barth details each of the five disputations and synods and evaluates the significance of the 1537 events.

Calvin published this original version of his Institutes the year before Peter Caroli accused Calvin of trinitarian heresy. Muller cites this volume to demonstrate that Calvin’s trinitarian orthodoxy was never in question. Barth notes that it is interesting that Calvin never referred to this work in his debates, a fact which may indicate the “politics” of Calvin’s solidarity with Farel and the reformers being more in view rather than Calvin’s own trinitarian teaching.

The later editions of the Institutes reflect Calvin’s trinitarian disputes, perhaps even with Caroli. Note Calvin’s dealing with the issue of whether or not it is proper to use technical terms such as “trinity,” etc.

Douglas Kelly has a great article on Calvin’s trinitarian theology in this collection of essays: “The True and Triune God: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.”

Volume 4 of Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics argues for a two-age development of the Reformed doctrine of the Holy Trinity and provides a summary of the characterics of both ages. When thinking through the Caroli debates, it is important to know, for example, that it was characteristic of the Reformed to resist extra-biblical terms such as “trinity” prior to 1540. (As is noted in the paper, Barth notes that one of the results of the 1537 synods is that Calvin is forced by the synod to use the term “trinity” in his teachings.) Muller provides evidence from Calvin’s own teachings that Calvin’s trinitarian orthodoxy was never in doubt and a offers a most useful organic historical perspective within which to view the events of 1537.

Though not mentioned in the paper, Berkhof defends Calvin’s orthodox view of the eternal generation of the Son:

It is sometimes said that Calvin denied the eternal generation of the Son. This assertion is based on the following passage: “For what is the profit of disputing whether the Father always generates, seeing that it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of generating when it is evident that three persons have subsisted in one God from eternity.” Institutes I. 13, 29. But this statement can hardly be intended as a denial of the eternal generation of the Son, since he teaches this explicitly in other passages. It is more liekly that it is simply an expression of disagreement with the Nicene speculation about eternal generation as a perpetual movement, always complete, and yet never completed. (Quoted from Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 95-96.)

Also not mentioned in the paper, Velema and van Genderen refer to Calvin’s orthodox views regarding the ancient symbols and Christ’s eternal generation:

As for the councils of Nicea (325) through Chalcedon (451), Calvin said that he regarded them as holy insofar as they conerned the doctrines (dogmata) of the faith. When someone brings the church into confusion with his teaching and it looks as though serious discord will ensue, the churches must convene and make a pronouncement that is derived from Scripture (definitio ex Scriptura sumpta). Thus the Council of Nicea upheld the eternal divinity of Christ over against Arius (Institutes, 4.9.8, 13). (Quoted from van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, 2.)

John Muether Interviewed About Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman

As a Reformation Day treat the guys over at The Reformed Forum released their interview with Prof. John Muether, author of Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman.

Listen to John reflect upon:

• CVT’s life story,
• the so-called “Clark-Van Til controversy,”
• the contexts of CVT’s writings,
• the under-appreciated theme of Reformed ecumenism in CVT’s teachings,
• the historical context of CVT’s polemic against Barthianism,
• CVT’s response to his critics’ charge of philosophical idealism,
• and the best starting points into CVT’s works for beginning readers.

Review: Fools for Christ: Essays on the True, the Good, and the Beautiful by Jaroslav Pelikan

Summary

Through colorful biographical sketches of six “fools” from Christianity’s history, Pelikan presents a poignant exhortation: unless one’s head, hands, and heart being “foolishly” committed to Jesus Christ at every point, then one’s pursuit of dogmatics, ethics, and aesthetics become idolatrous journeys into insanity.

Review/Reflection

My response to Pelikan’s book is part review and part autobiographical reflection:

• On Mastering Divinity and Being Mastered by the Divine (8 pp.; 164KB; .PDF).

“Welcome, Welcome, Sweet, Sweet and Glorious Cross of Christ” – Rutherford Thursdays No. 12

To Lady Kenmure On the Eve of Banishment to Aberdeen

Noble and Elect Lady,

That honor that I have prayed for these sixteen years, with submission to my Lord’s will, my kind Lord has now bestowed upon me, even to suffer for my royal and princely King Jesus, and for His kingly crown, and the freedom of His kingdom that His Father has given Him. The forbidden lords have sentenced me with deprivation, and confinement within the town of Aberdeen. I am charged in the King’s name to enter against the 20th day of August next, and there to remain during the Kings pleasure, as they have given it out.

Howbeit Christ’s green cross, newly laid upon me, be somewhat heavy, while I call to mind the many fair days sweet and comfortable to my soul and to the souls of many others, and how young ones in Christ are plucked from the breast, and the inheritance of God laid waste; yet that cross of Christ is accompanied with sweet refreshments, with the joy of the Holy Ghost, with faith that the Lord hears the sighing of a prisoner, with undoubted hope (as sure as my Lord liveth) after this night to see daylight, and Christ’s sky to clear up again upon me, and His poor kirk; and that in a strange land, among strange faces, He will give favor in the eyes of men to His poor oppressed servant, who dow not but love that lovely One, that princely One, Jesus, the Comforter of his soul.

All would be well, if I were free of old challenges for guiltiness, and for neglect in my calling, and for speaking too little for my Well-beloved’s crown, honor, and kingdom. This is my only exercise, that I fear I have done little good in my ministry.

I apprehend no less than a judgment upon Galloway, and that the Lord shall visit this whole nation for the quarrel of the Covenant. But what can be laid upon me, or any the like of me, is too light for Christ. Christ dow bear more, and would bear death and burning quick, in His quick servants, even for this honorable cause that I now suffer for. Yet for all my complaints (and He knoweth that I dare not now dissemble), He was never sweeter and kinder than He is now.

My dear worthy Lady, I give it to your Ladyship, under my own hand, my heart writing as well as my hand welcome, welcome, sweet, sweet and glorious cross of Christ; welcome, sweet Jesus, with Thy light cross. Thou hast now gained and gotten all my love from me; keep what Thou hast gotten! Only woe, woe is me, for my bereft flock, for the lambs of Jesus, that I fear shall be fed with dry breasts. But I spare now.

Madam, I dare not promise to see your Ladyship, because of the little time I have allotted me; and I purpose to obey the King, who has power of my body; and rebellion to kings is unbeseeming Christ’s ministers. Madam, bind me more (if more can be) to your Ladyship; and write thanks to your brother, my Lord of Lorn, for what he has done for me, a poor and unknown stranger to his Lordship. I shall pray for him and his house, while I live. Now, Madam, commending your Ladyship, and the sweet child, to the tender mercies of the Lord Jesus, and His good-will who dwelt in the Bush.

Edinburgh, July 28, 1636

Who is Lady Kenmure?

About “Rutherford Thursdays”

• See my introduction.
• Selection from His Letters is a public domain text hosted by CCEL. I have arranged and formatted Rutherford’s text and Hugh Martin’s editorial comments, added headings, paragraph separations, etc., for presentation on this blog.
• For a brief biographical sketch of Rutherford’s life, see Hugh Martin’s forward to Selections. And see Martin’s glossary for help with outdated vocabulary.
• Rutherford Resources:
  • Samuel Rutherford by Andrew Thompson. This book, now freely available via Google Books, presents two parts: First, a biography of Rutherford’s life; Second, a selection of Rutherford’s letters entitled “Honey from the Honeycomb.”
  • Fire and Ice index to S. R.
  • Samuel Rutherford: A New Biography of the Man & His Ministry. This biography by Kingsley G Rendell provides an excellent introduction to Rutherford’s life and work.

N. T. Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant: A Reformed Read Through Chs. 1-4

Download and Summary

• Download A Reformed Read Through N. T. Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant, Chs. 1-4 (PDF)
• Or read this paper online.

Abstract: In The Climax of the Covenant N. T. Wright’s exegetical arguments toward Christ’s covenantal fulfillment of the Old Testament offer a rich harvest of biblical-theological and covenantal insights. However, compared to other Reformed covenantal theologians, a lack of robust thinking about mankind’s prelapsarian covenantal state may be a small weakness in Wright’s beginning that leads to larger errors at the end of his conclusions.

Read and Respond

Climax was my first entree into Wright’s massive (and growing!) corpus. I welcome any critiques and suggestions of my preliminary evaluations, especially from readers more seasoned in Wright’s writings.

Wright-Related Resources

Review: Reforming Pastoral Ministry, ed. John H. Armstrong

Reforming Pastoral Ministry is a collection of essays written by (mostly) Reformed baptist pastors with the goal of encouraging younger pastors toward Scriptural reformation and revival. The book is supposed to be a modern rendition of Richard Baxter’s classic work, The Reformed Pastor. As a third year Presbyterian seminarian looking to enter the pastoral ministry, I thought the essays by Beeke, Marcellino, and Elliff were the most penetrating and helpful.

While it is always beneficial to learn from the wisdom of experienced pastors, overall, the book has a Baptistic, Puritan feel. The lack of a robust covenantal hermeneutic is evident throughout. Thus, at times throughout the book I was left wondering whether the authors had failed to consider the implications of Christ’s active obedience. (I have in mind here Kline’s covenantal critique of Fuller’s Unity of the Bible.)

The subtitle, “Challenges for Ministry in Postmodern Time,” is a little misleading; for, the book does not discuss postmodernity (i.e. tribalism, pluralism, etc.) as much as modernity (i.e. consumerism, pragmatism, industrialization, personal-public dichotemy). If the book is about postmodernity, then some of the essays are slightly outdated, quoting sources and dealing with issues from the ’70s, ’80s, and 90s (see Newton’s essays on church growth); this is not to say the essays are unhelpful, but would be perhaps more accurately labeled modern instead of postmodern.

Overall, I think there are better books worth reading on pastoral ministry. Instead of spending your time and money on this modern book, perhaps pursuing Baxter’s classic is a more rewarding investment.

Announcing John Muether’s New Biography of Van Til

Being involved in a very small way in the production process, I am excited to see John Muether‘s biography of Cornelius Van Til reach the press! More importantly, I’m excited that John has written an intriguing biography of a profound, creative, and challenging 20th century servant of Christ’s bride.

Muether introduces readers to Van Til as a complex and colorful character who lived the Reformed faith authentically–as a comprehensively God-centered way of life. Viewing Van Til as a whole person (not merely a Christian philosopher and apologist but also a zealous churchman) within his 20th century familial, educational, and ecclesial contexts immensely helps 21st century readers hear the lessons Van Til taught with his life as much as his with his lectures.

From the P&R e-Newsletter:

Cornelius Van Til
Reformed Apologist and Churchman
By: John R. Muether
978-0-87552-665-2, 288 pages, $24.99

This work contributes to an understanding of Van Til and his apologetic insights by placing him within the context of twentieth century developments in North American Reformed theology, including the formation of Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the rise of neo-evangelicalism, and American reception of Karl Barth.

“John Muether does a masterful job of tracing the personal history of this ‘father of presuppositionalism.’ He also shows the inextricable link between Van Til’s own call as a minister of the gospel and his task of training men for gospel ministry to be self-conscious in their apologetic method. As Muether weaves together the various strands of Van Til’s life and career, one can readily see, in a way not clearly seen before, that it was Reformed theology, and not philosophy, that shaped Van Til’s work as a Christian apologist. I could not put this book down.”
- K. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary

Related Views and Reviews

• Dr. R. Scott Clark: An historical theologian appreciatively reviews Muether’s Van Til biography in two parts.
• Rev. Dr. Gary L.W. Johnson: A former student of Van Til’s reminisces over his experience with Van Til as he reviews Muether’s biography (posted on Lane Keister’s blog).
  
• Rev. Lane Keister: Pastor Lane speculates briefly on (a) Van Til’s view of covenant theology being more akin to Kline than Murray and (b) a possible synthesis of the so-called Clark-Van Til epistemological controversy.
• Paul Manata: A self-proclaimed Reformed apologist offers a favorable review.
• Dr. Sean Michael Lewis: A co-editor in the series previews Muether’s Van Til biography, saying, “It really is a wonderful book.”
• Dr. Kim Riddlebarger says this biography is a “must read” and that Muether connected many confusing dots surrounding Van Til.

What Is Justification? A brief exposition of WSC 33

Overview: My personal statement on justification

For last semester’s systematics 3 course I was required to write a very brief (no more than 5 pp.) “personal statement” on the doctrine of justification. Furthermore, the professor asked us to read Richard Gaffin‘s By Faith, Not By Sight and a couple of chapters from N. T. Wright’s What St. Paul Really Said and to include some interaction with these books in our personal statement. (How one could accomplish this task in 5 pp. or less is beyond me!)

Being a Presbyterian, the leitmotif of my tradition’s application of Scripture to the question, How does God justify sinners?, is found in the Westminster Standards. So, my personal essay is an attempt to briefly explain the main parts of “justification” as defined by the Westminster Shorter Catechism question 33.

Self-Critique

I thought the point I made from Gaffin’s work about justification being a multi-dimensional/eschatological act is important; the grader, however, thought I didn’t interact enough with Gaffin’s book. (I plead the 5pp. requirement as too restrictive for the task I was asked to do.) Perhaps I could have done more to bring out Gaffin’s main emphases, especially that the Christian life (of which justification is surely an aspect) is at every point resurrection life.

My entry into the vast (and growing) corpus from N. T. Wright is puny. Perhaps this is partly the cause of the grader challenging my point on Wright’s ecclesiology. He or she did not like my statement in the third to last paragraph:

Rather, Wright’s definition of justification only offers sinners ecclesiastical acceptance in one another’s sight.

At this early point in my reading of Wright on justification (and I’ve got more than a long ways to go, I freely admit), I don’t care if he wants to re-define terms (like making “justification” an ecclesial concept rather than a soteriological concept) for his own creative pedagogical purposes, as long as–and here come my beef–he doesn’t do away with the substance of soteriology. Specifically, at least one aspect of soteriology’s substance that I find troubling in Wright’s formulations is that Christ’s active obedience is not as robust (explicit?) as it ought to be to reflect the New Testament’s presentation of the law-keeping Christ (as opposed to merely the penalty-paying Christ).

In my small theological experience thus far, Reformed covenant theology appears to let all of the aspects of Christ’s obedience come into their own in a robust manner that exceeds lesser formulations. (The first-second Adam motif comes to mind in terms of biblical theology; The covenant of life/works and covenant of grace comes to mind in terms of systematics.) Therefore, with my aforementioned qualifications/self-maledictions in mind, I am still waiting to see where Wright deals with the imputation of Christ’s obedience (in all of its aspects: law-keeping and penalty-paying) to the elect.

Read and Respond to my Paper

As always, I’d love to hear your comments, critiques, etc., as I seek to live more faithfully in Christ’s light. For those of you who have read more Wright than me, can you point me to where he discusses (or discounts?) Christ’s active obedience?

• Justification Essay (view via Google Docs)
• Justification Essay (download PDF)

Catholicity: Finding Unity and Diversity Amidst the Bride’s Broken Pieces

In a day when many churchmen are decrying disunity with their mouths while throwing rocks at Christ’s bride with their hands, a fresh blast of truth (i.e. kick in the pants) in love from a churchman long gone is a much needed cup of cold water to we thirsty pilgrims, trying to find the church among all her broken pieces.

As in Richard Baxter’s day, so in ours:

Alas, our flames do rise so high, that Turks, and Jews, and Heathens stand looking on them, and ask, “What is the matter that these Christians thus irreconcilably worry one another?” Do we need any proof, when we feel the smart? When we see the blood? When we hear the noise of revilers at home, and see the scornful laughters of those abroad? When almost all Christendom is up in arms? When the churches are so many by-names, and broken into so many odious fractions; and so many volumes fly abroad, containing the reproaches and condemnations of each other? And (which is enough to break an honest heart to think or speak of) that all this hath continued so long a time!

If the first paragraph (in full) doesn’t have us in tears, we may be well nigh beyond hope.

Baxter’s concluding exhortation points the Spirit’s sword straight to our hearts:

I beseech you therefore, poor, peevish, quarrelsome souls, give others leave to live in the same house with you: Do not disown your brethren, and say, they are bastards, because they somewhat differ from you in complexion, in age, in strength, in health, in stature, or any of the points wherein I told you a little before that the members of the church do usually differ in. Shew not yourselves so ignorant or froward as to make a wonder of it, that God should be the Father both of infants, and men at age, of weak and strong, and that the sick and sound should both be in his family. Doth such cruelty beseem the breast of a Christian, as to wish God to cast out all his children from his family that are weak and sick? Do not make it such a matter of wonder, that God�s house should have so many rooms in it; and think it not a reproach to it, that the kitchen or the coal-house is a part of the house. Wonder not at it as a strange thing, that all the body is not a hand or eye; and that some parts have less honour and comeliness than the rest. Hath God told you so plainly and fully of these matters, and yet will you not understand, but remain so perverse? I pray hereafter remember better that the catholic church is one, consisting of all true Christians as the members. . . .

May the many be drawn back to the One, and the One flourish in love among the many, not at the expense of truth (as some would have), but upon it as our foundation and only hope.