Peter Leithart writes:

Christopher Jencks lamented in his Language of Postmodern Architecture that the term had been used in ways opposite to his own usage: “When I first wrote the book in 1975 and 1976 the word and concept of Post-Modernism had only been used with any frequency in literary criticism. Most perturbing, as I later realized it had been used to mean ‘Ultra-Modern,’ referring to the extremist novels of William Burroughs and a philosophy of nihilism and anti-convention. While I was aware of these writings of Ihab Hassan and others, I used the term to mean the opposite of all this: the end of avant-garde extremism, the partial return to tradition and the central role of communicating with the public – and architecture is the public art.”

This does not surprise me at all. Though I have been woefully slow in reading it, Glenn Ward’s book on P-M begins with architecture. He stresses not so much the nihilism but the insistent utilitarianism in which all offices must be stipped to nothing more than “machines for working,” and all homes to “machines for living.” The only aesthetic was design and all traditional architectures were usless and therefore to be rejected. Post-Modernism, if I understand Ward, said Leave us alone and let us live in archaic styles if we want to. People are allowed to create an environment according to values that do not reduce to rational planning.

Despite my earlier complaint, it has been awesome to find out that my post on Christmas and imputation helped someone out. Here:

I have wondered for a long time about how Christ’s death could affect us. How could one person’s death atone for someone else’s sin? Why couldn’t my own death be satisfactory to God?

Sam Brown first helped me begin to understand when he mentioned the perfection of Jesus. This was later impressed upon me in a different way by Jonathan Edwards (being quoted by John Piper), by relating the infitude of our sin against God and the infinite worth of Christ.

Recently, a Christmas sermon from Mark Horne struck me again and I guess re-drove the other important point home. It wasn’t just the fact that Jesus died on a cross, this alone isn’t able to satisfy the demands of justice, but it also his relation to us that means these demands can be met.

It is great to get to help out, and especially to get to team up with Jonathan Edwards and john Piper!

Chesterton says respecting tradition means giving the departed a vote.

But this would make us all Hindu right? Or Buddhist. I mean the population of India is overwhelming now and I assume it that has been the case for centuries.

Surely the dead pagans outnumber the dead in Christ, right?

So it is not the dead who get the franchise but only an elite portion of the dead.

But what happens if Protestantism outstrips Catholicism for a few generations? Say a Roman Catholic Chestertonian invented a time machine and went a millennia into the future (the farthest reach of his machine). Say he found a planet of thirty billion that was mostly Christian and Protestant, and that had been that way for quite some time. He comes back and does the demographic research and realizes that he now has knowledge that the Protestants of the first three millennia of human history now make up a majority.

So would he give up his distinctive Roman Catholic belief? I doubt it. I think he would simply insist that eventually the numbers would return to a shape that gives the RCs a majority in the wider scope of world history.

More likely he would deny it mattered. It doesn’t matter who is more numerous now, the seven voter booths have closed and there are no further elections to be held. It is not simply that the dead get a vote, they form a dictatorship.

But whoever, Romand Catholic, or Protestant, would actually allow their beliefs to be dictated by any majority? We don’t give a vote to truth claims ever. In the West a great many have decided that Christianity is not true, yet those of us who remain loyal to the Apostalic Faith of the Creeds don’t care. The Apostles Creed is true no matter how many people now or ever despise it.

The reason we ask people to “listen to the dead” is because we think they are caught up in popular fads where they are, unknowingly and irrationally, allowing their beliefs to be dictated by sheer numbers. Pointing out that there are numbers of people who thought otherwise isn’t done to have our beliefs ruled by a real majority, but to cease subjecting our principles to the democratic process altogether. Our convictions come to us by divine-right monarchy or else as pretenders. Voting is stupid.

If I showed you the number of geocentrist Christians outnumbered the heliocentrists, would that prove what model you should adopt?

What are traditions? Sometimes they are actual stories about things that allegedly happened. Traditionally, we say, Revelation has been dated from the time of Domitian. What do we mean? We mean there is actual testimony of testimony about when John wrote Revelation. In order to re-date Revelations’ copyright date one must show the testimony is unreliable or find overwhelming counter-evidence. In the case of revelation there is reason to believe that the early testimony was misunderstood. The early tradition is fine but the tradition about the early tradition is a misunderstanding.

Another tradition is that Mary and Joseoph never consummated their marriage. I think what is interesting about this tradition is that it contains no genealogy. Paul can say he passes on a tradition and launch into the story of the founding of the tradition (1 Cor 11; 1 Cor 15). But here all we know is that in the Church everyone who taught about the virgin Mary and said anything about it also taught that she remained a virgin.

Did Mary tell someone? Did Joseph? Is this even really a tradition at all? I guess it is, but it involves no actual information about its own information.

And what about Chesterton’s democracy of the dead? How many Christians in the first four to six centuries of the Church actually exercised their franchise? Are there any records of people asking how this conviction was arrived at or where it came from? As far as I can tell the idea simply seemed plausible and was carried on from wherever it came from. No one voted. It is perfectly possible that the a later generation of Early Christians massively outnumbered the generation before. If they had decided to make up their minds about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they would have had to be agnostic about the issue. They had no testimony.

But wait, what about the testimony of the earlier Church? There is no testimony. No one claims that so-and-so received instruction from Mary or Joseph or Jesus about the issue. There is nothing but an opinion suspended “in the air.”

So the democracy of the dead turns into the dictatorship of the most ancient recorded. We are supposed to submit to a tiny fraction of the total number of Christians. We are to deny ourselves the franchise altogether. Neither we nor anyone in the hundred generations preceding us gets to vote on anything.

Is that really comparable to traditions about Scripture or about, say, the doctrines of the Nicene Creed? When I look at the books of the NT and compare them to the close contenders (Letter of “Barnabbas,” Shepherd of Herma) they don’t even look anything like the canonical books. If it wasn’t for the early Church I wouldn’t know whether the Gospel of Thomas is authentic? Really?

The testimony of the Early Church about the canon is never simply nothing more than a demographic survey from the earliest records. We not only have an idea of the consensus they came to, but we can see why they did so simply by looking at the documents and comparing them. The tradition is hugely important but it is not alone bearing the weight of our definition of the canon.

And this is even more true of the basic Chritian doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. Yes the Church has a tradition, but it is a tradition of argumentation. The arguments still work. It is not and never has been purely a matter of counting opinions. We don’t simply allow a majority or some elite generation with a franchise to vote on what is true.

Come to think of it, the most reviled stereotype of a North American Fundamentalist is far more orthodox (according to definitions shared by RC and Orthodox) than many thousands (or more) of Athanasius’ contemporaries. What is the early church consensus about God? The early church consensus was to to find it plausible, agains the testimony of Scripture, to deny that deity would taint itself by joining with creation. The early church consensus is a view of deity and spirituality that demands separation from the world. By God’s grace, the Scriptures were heard on these points, but it wasn’t easy. And there is no reason to believe that this widespread mindset (remember it was Athanasius contra mundum) didn’t result in many other errors that would require later reform according to the orthodox Christological confession that the church barely managed to make.

I think there is definitely good reason to respect teachers of an earlier age. I’m not sure democratic voting is a good model for the form that respect should take.

One of the easiest things to do is to decide that someone who disagrees with you doesn’t care about the Bible and feels free to disbelieve it. In the case of Liberals this is often true (perhaps that is so by definition for some). But there is always the possibility that the one who disagrees is someone who believes in the trustworthiness of the Bible as strongly as you do but simply understands it differently. For example, in this thread, an interpretation of Romans 9.30ff is used to “prove” that the Jews must have been merit legalists. No one seems aware of how such an interpretation begs the most basic question. The whole point of the New Perspective was that the “by works” refers to a different issue than that of earning or meritiing or “obeying enough” to inherit eternal life.

Currently there are three views on offer among Evangelicals. Before I list them let me offer the following for consideration:

• Sinners are only justified by faith, which joins them to Jesus Christ by the Spirit. Thus, his self-offering both in death, previous life, and current reign is accounted to them. They are given his righteous status. What Christ deserves is theirs even though they don’t deserve it, because Christ was willing to suffer the penalty they deserved and be the representative of all who trust in the God who sent Him. Again, this righteousness which Jesus has is only given to believers and only because they believe (and they only believe by God’s sovereign and invincible electing call).
• All people who hear the Gospel are commanded to believe the Gospel and trust the God revealed in the Gospel in order to be saved. Faith is obedience to a command.
• This faith in sinners, by which they are justified, is never morally perfect. Unbelief taints us and causes our faith to waver. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to join us to Christ so that we are counted as righteous before God.

What these points mean is quite simple. Any Evangelical can be accused of believing and teaching that sinners are justified by their imperfect obedience. By definition, anyone who confesses justification by faith alone confesses justificaton by imperfect obedience alone because faith is commanded and never done perfectly. The Westminster Confession deals with this possible equivocation by declaring that we justified by faith as an instrument of receiving Christ and his righteousness, not as some sort of meritorious cause.

The Apostle Paul contrasts faith and works. But he never defines “works” as obedience in the abstract. If he did so he would be logically incoherent. He is quite willing to speak of faith itself as obedience to the Gospel. Abstract obedience is not the issue, because then justification by faith would be the same as justification by works.

Thus what Paul meant by works is a matter of some debate at this time. Here are the three views currently being taught in Reformed circles.

1. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW This is the view held by Norman Shepherd, Daniel Fuller and many others. It holds that those attempting to be justified by works were Jews (and heretical Christians who adopted that teaching) who believed that one would be pronounced righteous by God on the basis of one’s own meritorious works. Romans 9.30ff basically says that the the Jews insisted on viewing the law as a means of earning or meriting salvation rather than as a description of what faith looks like in covenantal life. The Law as an administration of the covenant of grace rather than a covenant of works simply commanded faith in Christ alone
2. THE “NEW PERSPECTIVE” This is the view held by N. T. Wright and Don Garlington. It holds that those attempting to be justified by works were Jews who believed that their graciously-given standing God’s preChristian covnenants (Abrahamic/Mosaic), and their continuation in that covenant, guarranteed they were accepted and would be accepted as righteous in God’s sight. If one is liberal or non-evangelical, this “continuation” can take on virtually pelagian overtones. But among Evangelical exponents, this is simply a matter of living by faith to fruitfulness (e.g. John 15.1ff). The “works” Paul opposes then, is loyalty to the law that demands one become Jewish to be a true covenant member. Uncircumcised believers are at best second-class citizens in the Kingdom. Paul considers this a denial of the Gospel which asserts that believers are one in Christ and that the Jewish particularism–which the Law of Moses and the covenant of circumcision created–has served its purpose and now must give way to the new creation in Christ.
3. THE ASSENT VIEW This view is a modern aberration. It claims that faith is nothing more than affirming certain propositions in one’s mind. By “works,” Paul means all other actions other than assenting to the proper facts of the Gospel.

What is intriguing about the current level of discourse in the Reformed circles is that both 1 and 2 confess justification only by faith only in Christ on the basis only of his representative death and his righteous standing before God. They both give us a logically consistent presentation of justification by faith apart from the works of the Law. Furthermore, advocates of 2 has always insisted that Luther was right in using Paul’s arguments against his Medieval opponents. In fact, they have insisted that 2 includes all the positive content regarding 1. Paul wasn’t arguing against anachronistic Roman Catholic legalists, but his arguments against torah-idolizing covenantal nomists do in fact cover their errors as well.

So the question between 1 and 2 is simply who does the best exegetical justice to the text. Despite being the “traditional view” the beliefs of First-century Judaism have never been a matter of confessional orthodoxy (though you would never guess that from some innovative condemnations delivered from pulpits). There simply is no reason for any ecclesiastical conflict over this issue. It is a matter of discussion and debate.

On the other hand, in addition to doing exegetical violence to the text, and contradicting all the Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation and of the wider Church, 3 is by it’s own definition a legalistic creed. It asserts that any attempt to define faith as “doing” anything is legalism. Faith is simply assent. But assenting, believing, affirming are all, inescapably verbs. A person who does such things is still doing something. The definition of “works-righteousness” which motivated the development of so anemic a definition of “faith,” still condemns that faith as works-righteousness. By their own stringent definition–which is suddenly, silently, and mysteriously made less stringent for their positive proposal–they teach that one is justified by one’s own imperfect obedience.

There are many strange things about the current tempest-in-a-teapot over position 2. But one of the most bizarre is that advocates of 1, while claiming to be concerned about traditional Reformed theology, are so willing not only to accept advocates of 3, but extoll them for their attacks on 2. If one operates on the premise that our confessional heritage matters, or that Biblical exegesis matters, the current situation is unfathomable. Nothing is said in the Westminster Confession or Catechisms about the theology of first-century Judaism. The idea of faith being nothing more than believing certain propositions, however, is explicilty singled out and rejected.

What Makes a Christian?

Hmmm…Isn’t this is the same man who said that the gospel proclamation of the so-called “Federal Vision” could not be trusted because it failed the “test” of Romans 6? The diagnostic test is that no one would accuse the “Federal Visionists” of antinomianism.

And here his entire point is that those “federal visionists” don’t believe in conditions to the covenant.

Well whatever the case, I’m glad to report that I entirely agree with Phillips that faith is a condition of justification. I agree entirely with Zacharias Ursinus (who, I trust, we can all concede was not influenced by that dangerous false teacher John Murray!?), when he lectured:

Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. There are, therefore four terms in this syllogism, or there is a fallacy in understanding that as spoken particularly, which must be understood generally. Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized. But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.

..We also deny the minor proposition; for infants do believe after their manner, or according to the condition of their age; they have an inclination to faith. Faith is in infants potentially and by inclination, although not actually as in adults. For, as infants born of ungodly parents who are without the church, have no actual wickedness, but only an inclination thereto, so those who are born of godly parents have no actual holiness, but only an inclination to it, not according to nature, but according to the grace of the covenant. And still further: infants have the Holy Ghost and are regenerated by him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb, and Jeremiah is said to have been sanctified before he came out of the womb (Luke 1.5; Jeremiah 1.5). If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with everything that is requisite for baptism, according to the declaration of Peter, “Can any man forbid water to them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” It is for this reason that Christ enumerates little children amongst those that believe, saying, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me.” Inasmuch now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm.

The emphasis is mine. Faith is required and necessary for salvation. Clear?

And I don’t think I’m especially unique. No matter what we hear second-hand about what Schlissel said once years ago we all know that Rich Lusk’s noteriety does not result from a book entitled Paedononconditions. (If there were a movement with different agreed-upon points then perhaps one person in the leadership of this movement could be said to speak for others. But obviously there is no such thing.)

I know many will refuse to believe this but I actually have (used to have?) Roman Catholic friends. No, I wouldn’t normally talk this way about Mary in front of them. If you are perceived as insulting someon’s mother it is pretty hard to get them to like you. I would avoid that. Keep in mind that, from my own point of view, I’m vindicating Mary from false charges of sexual perversion.

But my post had other considerations in mind. When I witness RC converts and would-be converts acting like this whole pack of dualistic myths are credible and worse “pious to believe,” I think it is appropriate to break the spell. There is no substance to the case here: high-sounding speech is the argument.

As far as “locker-room” language is concerned, all I can say is that some Christians must have gone to High School with a really prissy gym class.

Regarding this, I will add that Josh had some helpful insights here. I’ll be glad to see a reasonable response.

Really though, this whole conversation is not about Roman Catholicism in its own integrity but about why Reformed or Lutheran or Anglican Evangelicals would find Roman Catholic ex-Evangelical apologists attractive. How can one recoil (as I do) from most of the Protestant “apologists” out there and then claim that the RC apologists are all so compelling?

Sophistication in rationalization is not intellectual activity.

And that only touches on the problems. How do you write something like this, and forget to mention the Fourth Crusade? If this is how they will whitewash the issues in the case (and to the harm) of those closest to them, then why trust anything they have to say to “fundamentalists”?

This is reality, not fiction. But it seems as creepy as any horror TV series.

I don’t have time to summarize the first chapter, but it is even better than I remembered. Obviously, Alexander Schmemann was not a Reformed Protestant. But he was still well worth a discriminating read.

His writing was not only helpful but also beautiful.

Below I noted that you can’t have it both ways. If a tradition is established then it cannot later slowly evolve into being. If an early Bishop of Rome does not believe he is the Pope, but later bishops believe they are the Pople, then the idea and practice must have devoloped over time. Whatever sort of authority might be behind such an arrangement, it makes no sense to press for such authority and at the same time claim that this idea or practice was estalished by Jesus initially. That is self-contradictory.

Tim Enloe has some interesting thoughts on this matter.