Theology

Leisure: The Basis of Culture (Including The Philosophical Act), by Josef Pieper ★★★★★

This book was a gift from an old friend, Dane Waterman. We had been discussing how Carlo Lancellotti had translated into English and made the English-speaking world aware of the writings and thought of Del Noce. Pieper, writing from Germany and somewhat contemporary to Del Noce, reflects similar thoughts. Their thesis relates to demonstration as to how Marxism and liberal thinking is presenting an alternative “gospel”. This is especially poignant as Pieper and Del Noce, both being Roman Catholic, passed away before a truly Marxist pope (the current pope) was installed.

The text is divided into two sections, the first being the topic of leisure, and the second section is a discussion of the philosophical act. The two lectures are complementary. In the first section, leisure is defined and developed as an essential part of society. Clearly, leisure is not “labor” to speak of, but is also is NOT laziness or idleness. Leisure (in Pieper’s sphere) is not the act of going on vacation or of watching a good movie. Leisure entails the act of contemplation, meditation, silence, and reflective conversations. Such activity is vital for a society that wishes to sell itself as a free and open society, but is also contrary to the ideology of Marxism. A phrase that I was taught as a child “Arbeit macht das Leben suß” (work makes life sweet) is prevalent in German culture, yet even there, the rise of poets, philosophers, and theologians more than answers how a Christian-based society grasps the need for leisure.

The second section of the book addresses the issue of philosophers. Why do we need them? What do they do? What does it mean to be a philosopher? All of these questions are answered in an oblique style fitting for a philosopher. Is this nothing but an example of Pieper in the act of self-justification? I don’t think so. This section was a bit muddier and not an easy task for me to read, though the final pages demonstrated a wonderful ending. The ultimate end of philosophy is that of identification with Scripture, which allows us the ability to know. Perhaps it might be said that all theologians are philosophers, though their focus is different. It might also be said that all people are philosophers, as we all develop and maintain a personal Weltanschauung, which affects the totality of our thoughts, actions, and behaviors.

I have one concern regarding this book, and would have loved to engage Josef Pieper in a challenge. He begins with the challenge of the great Greek philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. I certainly enjoy reading the classics of philosophy. Yet, Clement of Alexandria and other 2nd century Christian writers were quick to note that that the Greeks were plagiarists, and reflected thinking that existed well before their time, in the writings of Moses and the Old Testament. Thus, as Cornelius VanTil has repeatedly argued, and philosophical starting point of necessity must be Scripture. You cannot get to Scripture by pure reason starting with a tabula rasa. Pieper’s argument could have been much stronger by having his arguments originate in Scripture, rather than by originating through reason in the human mind and ending up in Scripture. This mistake is plentiful not just with the Roman Catholics, but also with the Protestants and Orthodox brands of the Christian faith.

Why read the Roman Catholics? Simply stated, because many of them are Christians just like the Protestants and Orthodox folk out there. It was John Zmirak (see his website at https://stream.org), a devout Catholic, who noted that he was praying for Pope Francis’ salvation. I could say the same thing for many well-known Protestants out there, such as with Tim Keller, Francis Collins, etc. About 30 years ago, an old teacher of mine, JI Packer, was dismissed from the Ligonier Ministry conferences by RC Sproul since he signed a statement encouraging Evangelicals and Catholics to engage in discussion. I totally agree with Packer, and feel that Protestantism is at a loss for not seeing how others think about philosophical and biblical issues from a slightly different slant. My personal denomination (the PCA, of which RC Sproul was a member) is diminished through failure to communicate with the entire body of the Christian church. Packer did not find that rapport with the RC community diminished his theology or message. Neither should we.

So, even with my disagreements with Pieper, I was able to find many gems in this small tome. A great book is not necessarily a book you totally agree with, but with a book that is able to stir your thoughts and to force you into that delightful activity that we call leisure. And my thanks to Dane and Bernadette for giving me this book.

Lessons from the Upper Room: The Heart of the Savior, by Sinclair Ferguson ★★★

This book being used for the Saturday morning men’s book reading group at church. I’ve been unable to make a number of the meetings, so decided to finish reading the book and going on from there.

Sinclair Ferguson provides an expositional devotional to the upper room discourse of Jesus, as found in John 13 to 17. The book is broken up into 13 chapters, each chapter offering a vignette of the upper room discourse. Ferguson is most capable of pointing out gems that may be found in these five chapters. As a devotional book, it is a wonderful text to read.

The Origin of Paul’s Religion: A Classic Defense of Supernatural Christianity, by J. Gresham Machen ★★★★★

JG Machen was a seminal individual in conservative Presbyterian circles defending against the progressive liberalization of the church. This text is one of his arguments against attempts to turn the apostle Paul into a fabricated character of the liberal scholar. Liberal scholarship in the late 19th century and 20th century, mostly from Germany, have attempted to remove the miraculous from the life of Paul, and turn him into a product of various political and religious influences. This book originated as a series of talks given by Machen.

Machen first introduces the problem. Attempts have been made to explain away the phenomenon of Paul, his conversion, and his ministry. A lengthy introduction describes the problem at hand. Machen then discusses the early life of Paul. Notably, Paul was born and grew up in the dispersion (Tarsus), but claims that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, suggesting that even though he probably learned Greek early in life, his life and language were Hebrew. Being a strict Pharisaical Jew, he clearly would have been adverse to the pagan and liberal influences strongly present at the time of his childhood. In the chapter titled “The Triumph of Gentile Freedom”, Machen explores Paul’s interactions with the church leadership in Jerusalem. Machen notes that while liberal theologians would love to paint a scene of severe disagreements between Paul and the 11 apostles as well as with James and other Jerusalem church leadership, close examination shows that such was not the case, and that there tended to be mutual appreciation for the theologies of Paul and the Jerusalem church. The chapter that follows, “Paul and Jesus” looks further into the congruence between Paul’s theology and that as found in the words of Jesus. The point is that Paul, though he probably never met Jesus face-to-face, was able to obtain detailed information about Christ’s life, even beyond what is found in the four gospels.

Machen then takes on challenges from the liberals who attempted to reduce Paul to a product of either Jewish sources or pagan sources. In the course of three chapters, Machen is able to demonstrate adequately that such suggestions are completely out of touch with what we know about Judaism and paganism in the 1st century of the church. Finally, Machen addresses the issue of Jesus being called “Lord”, which in ancient times was synonymous with calling Jesus God.

This book was a delightful tome to read. I enjoy Machen’s thought processes and how he is able to cut down the liberal arguments with simply logic and presentation of the facts. It is a pity that more theologians today are not defending the historic faith as Machen did; they seem to desire more the ability to maintain “status” among the academic liberals rather than to fearlessly fight for the truth. The Origin of Paul’s Religion is not a book meant for anybody to read. Those who enjoy a first-class theological discussion of the defense of historic Christianity will be amply served with this book.

Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, by Joseph Ratzinger and Marcello Pera ★★★★

This book consists of simultaneous lectures given in Rome by Joseph Ratzinger (soon after changing his name to Pope Benedict XVI) and Marcello Pera, president of the senate of Italy and philosophy professor. This is followed by a commentary letter from Pera to Ratzinger and a return letter from Ratzinger to Pera.

Pera’s speech is given first. In it, he comments on the identity crisis of the west, being faced with relativism from Islam, contextualists, deconstructionists, and even within the church. With the loss of identity and ability to value older Christian tradition, and with the loss of belief in truth, the west has been left without a legitimization for its own existence.

Ratzinger follows. Europe, according to Ratzinger, is entirely a product of Christian civilization, and for which they were intimately intertwined. Christianity essentially defined Europe and its culture, that is, until quite recently.

Pera responds with a letter addressing Ratzinger’s talk, and Ratzinger responds in kind with a letter. Both letters were complementary, and relates to Europe’s abandonment of its Christian roots. Pera focuses on political aspects of Europe, debating why Europe is unable to construct a unified constitution, and exploring the relationship between the secular and Christian Europe. Indeed, as Europe sees Christianity as an expired and judgmental notion, Europe also enters into what Pera terms self-hate, but I think that self-loathing is probably a better description of what is going on in Europe. Pera’s discussion becomes muddied. He describes the continual state of war in Europe (and the world) as normative, and thus to not think of war as intrinsically evil. This is misguided, since many evils are normative in this world. The Catholics do have the doctrine of original sin! Pera advocates for a non-denominational Christian religion. Ratzinger takes the discussion from here, agonizing over the division of Christianity in Europe following the Reformation. He suggested (in 2004 when the book was written) that America was doing a much better job with maintaining Christianity in the public square. If Ratzinger were alive today, I think he would take back most of his remarks. Ratzinger astutely notes “Statistics tell us that the more churches adapt themselves to the standards of secularization, the more followers they lose”. Ratzinger offers reflections on how Christianity could be in a non-denominational manner more present in the public square. This is an issue that will foster debate and discussion in both Europe as well as the now deeply secular United States of America.

I always appreciate reading Ratzinger/Benedict. He had a strong conservative Christian mindset, and displays how the Roman Catholic church still has elements of conservatism, and still has the same battles as the Protestants in fighting against secularism, relativism, invasion of other cultures (esp. Islam), and abandonment of the concept of truth. This exchange between Pera and Ratzinger supports JI Packer’s thesis of the value of maintaining rapport between conservative Catholics and Protestants. Both sides have great thinkers who would serve better if they would engage in talk with each other.

I have only one objection to Ratzinger, which probably is more of a misconception on my part of his thinking. After reading his book describing the lives of the patristic fathers, he comments fairly harshly on Tertullian for his separatist behavior, yet is kind to Origin in spite of his wild speculative theology. This attitude probably affected his thinking of modern separatists (the Reformation Protestant movement) who, like Tertullian, sought to bring corrective measures to the church. Ratzinger ignores the huge influence Tertullian has had on the Roman Catholic (western) church. This sort of thinking will only do harm to his efforts to usher in a “non-denominational” Christianity in Europe, as it paints the Roman church in a hierarchically superior position to Protestantism. Perhaps that is true. Yet, Ratzinger in his writings assiduously avoids mentioning the sins and faults of the Roman church, including its current idolatries, heterogeneity, and secularism that pervades much of the church. This thinking does damage to the thesis of an otherwise quite remarkable person.

Without Roots can be read in several evenings. Protestants need to accept that many in the Catholic church are probably closer to their thinking than fellow liberal Protestants which promote the elevation of the self to god-like status. Without Roots was a worthwhile read, though I’d be selective with whom I’d also recommend the book.

The Christian View of Man, by J. Gresham Machen ★★★★★

This book was published posthumously, representing a series of radio talks that JG Machen gave before his untimely death. It was originally published in 1937, and this is a Banner of Truth reprint obtained from Amazon.

JG Machen is a true giant of the faith. As a scholar, he studied in Germany under the liberal theologians of the time, later leading the charge against the liberalism that was destroying the Presbyterian church. The warnings and cautions issued by Machen in this text are certainly more relevant today than when he gave his talks. He anticipated the degeneration of society and labeled the root cause as that of the public losing faith in God. He anticipated the development of nuclear energy and the destructive uses that might be forthcoming from that. Machen was very prophetic in anticipating the results of casting God out of the schools and out of government.

This text might better be titled Anthropology 101. In this set of 20 radio talks, Machen explores the theology of who man is, God’s providence over man, the creation and fall of man, our response to God as fallen sinners, original sin, and how God saves us. Machen speaks (writes) in a very simple fashion that almost anybody could understand, yet covers some very complex deep topics that could open a wealth of discussion and reflection. This is truly solid, hard-core theology delivered with the intention of having academic theology affect the practical aspects of life. In this, Machen is completely successful.

The book is highly recommended by me for any Christian serious about his faith. This might have been perhaps my second time through the book, having read it 20-30 years ago. I don’t really remember, but then, it’s a book worth reading twice. It can be easily read over the course of 2 or 3 evenings.

The Returning King; A guide to the book of Revelation, by Vern Poythress ★★★★

The book of Revelation has a multiplicity of commentaries. If one were to read the commentaries without actually having read Revelation, one would think that they were reading commentaries on vastly different books. The interpretations among conservative Biblical scholars has great diversity, as well as a diversity of fanaticism. I recall well as a teenager when Hal Lindsey produced his dispensational premillennial spin on the book. Of course, his books (Late Great Planet Earth & Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth) required multiple revisions and updates during the 20-30 years that the Lindsey books remained popular. Conversely, I recently read a postmillennial preterist spin on Revelation by Doug Wilson titled When the Man Comes Around which was a bit of scholarly trash, in which I never even wasted my time to write a review. Both the dispensational premillennialists and postmillennialists have used their eschatology as a litmus test for orthodoxy, though they tend to have enough disagreements among themselves as to suggest that perhaps we should all have a little bit of humility with our opinions. Perhaps the best book I´ve read so far, and I´ve read it more than once, is William Hendrickson´s More Than Conquerors. He takes an amillennial approach and considers Revelation to be a 7-fold retelling of the history of the world from the time of Christ to the consummation. This book has been the most scholarly and convincing to me.

In The Returning King, Poythress suggests an eclectic approach to Revelation, using all 4 so-called interpretive schemes, the historicist, the futurist, the preterist, and the idealist. He would label Hendrickson as a perfect example of the idealist approach. It seems on reading Poythress’s volume that he tends to concur quite strongly with the Hendrickson approach, viewing Revelation as a seven-fold telling of Church history, progressing timewise from the first accounts of church history as focusing on early events and later accounts as focusing more on future events. Hendrickson would divide the 7-fold accounts a little differently from Poythress, yet ultimately the end interpretive result is quite similar. Poythress is soft on the millennial issue, but his discussion shows a very strong leaning toward the amillennial position.

Like most commentaries, the first few chapters of Poythress’s commentary discusses sundry issues such as the author, the date of writing, and technical aspects of how the book will be interpreted. This is followed by section-by-section interpretive suggestions. What do the various colors of things symbolize? What is the meaning of an animal with 7 heads or multiple eyes? Why does a last battle occur a number of times in Revelation—were there multiple last battles, or is the Apocalypse pointing us to a recurring retelling of the same story from various perspectives. Who or what is the beast? The prostitute? The dragon? What is the meaning of all the numbers given? Why is 7 so frequently used? What is 666? What is the meaning of the 144000? Why are precise measurements given to the new earth, something that would be an impossibility in the physics of our current world? Thankfully, much of the symbolism of Revelation has reference to Ezekiel, Daniel, other minor prophets, the prophetic speeches of Christ, and the prophetic discussions of Paul in his epistles. Dangers exist—the most popular danger is to read much of the book as figurative and yet to force literal interpretations on selective items, such as the 1000-year reign of Christ. Poythress is wise in not forcing interpretations that he might later regret, a trait most associated with Hal Lindsey. Poythress’s strength is that of bringing the necessity of reading and heeding the warnings of Revelation to everybody, young and old, in all generations. The book is an unveiling, not an encryption of the past, present, and future, and should be read as such. It is as much a story of the present as it is a story of the future.

Poythress does not offer us a thorough scholarly review of Revelation. There is no shame in that, and his little volume is quite effective at conveying an overall method for approaching what might be termed an obscure book. Poythress is no light-weight in the academic field, and this little tome on Revelation can be regarded as a decent summary of the book, releasing Revelation from either fatalistic obscurity or from livid and wild abstractions, as might be found in the premillennial dispensational approach of Hal Lindsey. Thus, I would commend it as a worthwhile summary of the book of Revelation.

We are currently starting through the book of Revelation in Sunday School, with the idea of completing the book within the span of several months. They are using a text written by a Southern Baptist individual J. Scott Duvall, The Heart of Revelation: Understanding the 10 Essential Themes of the Bible’s Final Book Reading the first pages of the book on Amazon, it is difficult to sort out its orientation, something Scott seems to try to avoid, focusing instead on the thematic material of the book, i.e., as Henrickson has stated, that we are more than conquerors. Duvall has written a commentary on Revelation, so this book attempts to serve not so much as a commentary as a discussion of the relevant themes in the book. I probably will not be reading that text, mostly because I feel that further insights into the book would not be gained by reading it. I’ll be most interested in the ensuing discussions at church.

Introducing Covenant Theology, by Michael Horton ★★★

I’ve read a number of books by Micheal Horton, and have appreciated not only his theology but also his teaching style. In this book, my expectations were a touch higher than Horton delivered, as I’ll explain later. Horton writes well, so this book was not a challenge to read. It’s 194 pages long, yet Horton has been able to keep repetition to a minimum.

The book starts out with a definition of a covenant. Horton breaks down covenants into two types, suzerainty covenants, and promissory covenants. Covenants, by their nature, are one-sided events, with suzerainty covenants entailing obligations on the part of the covenant individual, and promissory covenants based solely on the trustworthiness of the covenant giver. As examples, the Noahic covenant was promissory, in that it did not demand obedience for God to promise never to flood the earth again; the Mosaic covenant is a suzerainty covenant that states essentially “Do this and you will live, don’t do this and you will die”. Much of his references in the first part of this book were to Meredith Kline and to O. Palmer Robertson. I’ve read Robertson, whose writings on the covenants are superlative.

After developing the nature of the covenants, Horton explores several other areas related to covenant theology. Common grace is mentioned, which is the blessings God bestows even on the ungodly. Evil people also enjoy good health, a good brain, sunshine and rain, as well as a society in good behavior. These are all a part of the promissory covenants which God makes with man. The people of the covenant are discussed, as well as the status of the Israelites. Here, Horton drives a strong stance for amillennial eschatology as best fitting a covenantal approach to Scripture. Horton discusses the Sacraments and develops support for the Reformed thinking of the nature of the Eucharist. He discusses the means and implications of signs and seals of the covenant. Finally, Horton closes with a chapter offering last words on the law-grace tension.

What are my misgivings with this book, why do I only give it 3 stars? Firstly, I believe Horton holds too heavily of a stance with Kline. Kline appropriately noted how the Biblical covenants strongly resemble many of the covenants of the Ancient Near East (ANE) kings. Such information is helpful but certainly not necessary in grasping the significance of a covenant-making God. It also leaves one in the lurch; did God model His covenants after the ANE kings, or vice-versa? If the latter, then Biblical covenants explain the secular covenants and not vice-versa.

Secondly, Horton does poorly in detailing the history of Covenant Theology. Was Calvin adherent to covenant theology? Where could you prove it in Calvin’s writings? Why is Witsius only mentioned as a footnote? How do the Heidelberg and Westminster Confessions promote the theology of the covenants? In what ways do the theology of Cocceius and Witsius differ? How is it that covenant theology was developed out of the Biblical Theology movement, and not the Systematic Theology movement? How did Reformed thinkers after Cocceius and Witsius further develop the theology of the covenants?

Third, Covenants, including the covenant of grace in which we are currently living, say something about the children of believers, yet Horton is totally silent in this regard. Why?

Fourthly, what are the main arguments against Covenant Theology? A chapter comparing and contrasting Covenant vs. non-Covenant theology would have been very helpful. Is Covenant Theology truly synonymous with Calvinism/Reformed thinking? Can one be a partial Covenanter, or a halfway house covenant theologian? How does one answer the individual who claims that they are in the Reformed (5-star Calvinist) camp and yet disavow Covenant Theology? Reformed Baptists offer a distinctive twist on the theology of the covenants which would have deserved a mention.

Fifthly, many of the Israelites from Moses to Jesus were saved, and the saved Israelites were all saved by grace rather than by keeping the law, though Horton implies that the Abrahamic covenant (promissory, by grace) was in action here. This is a weak argument since the Abrahamic covenant applied to the land but not for personal salvation. This is an issue that could have been more strongly developed.

Finally, Horton seems sufficiently concerned about not being confused with advocates of salvation by works, so he doesn’t deal adequately with the beauty of covenant theology in reconciling the tension between salvation by faith and salvation by works. This is a bit understandable. Many of contemporary Reformed theologians’ most fierce battles have been over the accusations regarding grace “vs” works (sola gratia)*, as though grace and works were competitive ideas. Recent attacks on Federal Vision (not to be confused with Federal Theology) bear witness to how brutal Christians can be in their accusations of heresy over this single issue. Please make no mistake, I am not a Federal Vision advocate, mostly because it has failed to adequately define itself precisely. Or, perhaps I am a Federal Vision advocate since it has no clear definition????

Though Horton argues against it, his tendency is to regard the law as solely deontological, that is, consisting of nothing but a list of duties with promise (the land and health) rewarded for obedience. The authors who penned the Psalms seem to mention the law frequently, and always as a source of joy, wisdom, guidance, strength, and delight. The Psalms destroy the notion that the law simply addresses our actions and not our thoughts. Psalm 119 is especially noted as an encomium to the law. The mistaken interpretation of the law by the Jewish community at the time of Christ saw the law (works) solely as a source of salvation without the necessity of faith and true love for God. In this, I believe the Reformers rather than NT Wright were right (no pun intended).

JI Packer’s short Introduction to Covenant Theology as well as Geerhardus Vos’s The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology were previously read by me in preparation for reading Horton. Packer was definitely the most insightful, selling Covenant Theology not as a particular theological movement, but rather as a hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. This seems to make the most sense to me. Vos is erudite but sharp in his readings, offering good historical insights and not being afraid to be mistaken as a “legalist”. For example, “Thus, it is that in the covenant of grace, too, the participants are exempt from the demand of the law as the condition for eternal blessedness, but not from its demand as being normative for their moral life.” With both authors, the superiority of seeing Scripture in a Reformed covenantal fashion is a necessity. JI Packer notes, “1. The gospel of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame,… 2. The word of God is not properly understood til it is viewed within a covenantal frame”. I wholeheartedly agree with Packer on these points, and his short tome is valuable reading.

This was a worthwhile book to read, written in a scholarly but quite readable format. If Horton were to address my concerns mentioned above, the book would be awesome but also considerably lengthier. IMHO, I think it would be worth it.

-* moral law is not an arbitrary set of rules/laws given by God for man to obey, but is based on the very nature and character of God, ie, God is by his very being ontologically moral. Thus, any claim to be free from “the law” is a claim also to be free from God. Another way to say it, ontology and ethics are separate topics for created man, though with God they are a unity.