Discendi Studio - a conference for theological scholarship

It's a strange day when PTC hosts a conference with a Latin title, but we think it makes sense! Discendi studio means 'zeal to learn' and it comes from a couplet at the end of the “Dedication to the Reader” in 1559 Edition of Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion (see more details below).

In April the three colleges of the PCA are going to hold a conference in which we share our work in scholarship in the varying theological fields. It should be a good chance to hear  what staff and students are thinking about and researching as well as a time to build some bridges between Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. The conference will be at PTC in Sydney April 7-9, 2009. If it is successful there may be further conferences in the other cities.

There will be lots of Calvin conferences next year with the 500th anniversary of his birth, but this one will be a bit different, because it won't so much be about Calvin as it will be trying to continue his heritage of scholarship devoted to God and ruled by his word.

Anyone is welcome to attend the conference and to propose a paper for the plenary sessions or the interest sections. You don't have to be at one of the colleges or in the PCA. You can download the full details and registration from the download section of our website. 

The title comes from the couplet: Quos animus fuerat tenui excusare libello; Discendi studio magnum fecere volumen. Battles translates this as “ ’Tis those whose cause my former booklet pled, Whose zeal to learn has wrought this tome instead”. Calvin acknowledges that it has been the enthusiasm of his readers to learn from him that stimulated his writing, so that the Institutes grew to be a remarkable work of theology. We hope to continue the same zeal, stimulated by Calvin’s writings.

Preaching and Spiritual formation

Craig Larsen has a great article on the Christianity Today site about preaching.  He points out that a lot of literature on spiritual formation has little place for preaching, but that preaching is, in fact one of God's given "means of grace". (I don't think he uses the term but that is what he is talking about.) That is a good point, but what makes the article even better  is that he describes how good preaching (note the adjective) should be effective in spiritual formation. It is a great list. I think my favourite item is number 4. "As our church communities listen to good preaching, it brings us into the place of corporate — rather than just individual — obedience." Have a look at the list and tell us what you think.

I also like the final point he makes - that we should therefore teach people how to listen to sermons for the sake of spiritual formation.

The other area the article could lead us to think about is if we will preach differently if we see what we are doing as the key to the spiritual formation of the church.

WCF Chapter 2.1-2 flow chart

Here are section 1&2 of the Chapter 2 of the WCF laid out to show their flow. Compare this with the 39 Articles and the Irish Articles which were the direct historical precursors of the WCF. Both simply say "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible". The WCF is so much fuller and deals with God's ongoing relation to the creation.

1 There is but one only living and true God,

            who is infinite in being and perfection,

            a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,

            most holy,

            most free,

            most absolute,

            working all things

                        according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,            

                                    for his own glory;

            most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,

            abundant in goodness and truth,

            forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin;

            the rewarder of them that diligently seek him ;

            and withal most just and terrible in his judgements hating all sin ,

                         and who will by no means clear the guilty.

 

2   God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;

            and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient,

                        not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made,

                        not deriving any glory from them,

                                    but only manifesting his own glory, in, by, unto and upon them:

            he is the alone fountain of all being,

                        of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things;

            and hath most sovereign dominion over them,

                        to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever he pleases.

            In his sight all things are open and manifest;

            his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,

                         so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.

            He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works and all his commands.

            To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature,

                         whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, he is pleased to require of them.

Blogging the Confession 7 - God: absolute and transcendent

The WCF begins with Scripture, but the following chapter moves to focus on God. God is by far the most important theme of the confession. Have a look at how many of the following chapters start with a statement about what God has done, sometime expressed in terms of the work of Christ. Even when God is not mentioned directly at the start of a chapter it does not take much reflection to see that an view of his purposes shapes every chapter of the confession.

Aquinas spoke of theology treating all things "sub ratione Dei" (in relation to God). He taught that theology is a unified science because it “does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end” (ST  I.1.3. ad1). (The graphic is from a 15th C edition of Aquinas' Summa). The WCF seeks to do the same thing.
So it is no surprise that chapter 2, offers a very full and impressive doctrine of God, albeit stated tersely. It is a statement of the indisputable majesty and greatness of the only God.

The doctrine of the Trinity is left to section 3. If I was given the chance to rewrite the confession I’d probably put the Trinity at the beginning of the chapter and let it shape the rest. That might have avoided some of the ways people read the chapter. I’ll look at the Trinitarian doctrine in the next post.

The best way to get an idea of the Chapter, specially the first two sections, is to write it out in a flow diagram. I’ll put my version in a later blog.

 Section 1 begins by affirming the unity and transcendence of God (one only living and true God … most absolute). The Reformed tradition along with all orthodox theology has always made it clear that there is a great ontological distinction between God and creation. More than some traditions the Reformed were ready to focus on this and to spell it out in biblical terms.

 It then deals with God’s character as he deals with his creation (working all things … will by no means clear the guilty). He freely and personally enters into a relationship with all he creatures, and specially all his human creature. Chapter 7 will fill this out in terms of relations which come from creation and from covenant.

 Chapter 2 again to stresses God’s self-sufficiency, and sets his relationship with his creatures in the context of this: he is glorified by them but does not need this, he is  sovereign over them, and knows all fully and necessarily. It conclude with the proper response of humans to God, which is grounded in God’s will (cf 7.1 and 21.1).

 The expression that God does not have “passions” is often taken to mean that God is apathetic or without anything like human feelings. However John Murray explains that the phrase refers either to “sufferings or to violent motions in the sense of bad temper” or to “passive qualities or properties applicable to a physical object “ (J. Murray, “The theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith” Scripture and Confession  P&R, 132). This squares with the Confession also saying that God is “loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering”. These terms have to be understood analogically when applied to God, but the scriptural precedents exclude a claim that the analogy removes anything like human affections from God.

 There is little expression here of God’s immanence, though the phrase “of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things” would include the thought that “in him we live and move and have our being”. It is perhaps here that a Trinitarian statement would add to the treatment, since it is only that doctrine which allows us to affirm that God is truly transcendent and absolute and yet also present to and involved with his creation. Related to this concern is the observation that the confession has little to say at this point about God’s love for all his creation. Again I agree that more could be said. However I’d still defend the confession’s emphasis on God’s majesty over against creation. How strong this emphasis should be leads us into a discussion about Classical Theism (a discussion I am not going to go into here!).

Blogging the Confession 6 - no rival authority

The first chapter of the WCF finishes by clarifying the scope of the Bible’s authority. The implication has been clear through the chapter that the Bible has no rival for authority. That implication is spelt out and the confession asserts that all other teaching is to be tested by the teaching of the Bible, whether it comes from councils (such as the Westminster Assembly itself) or the Church Fathers, or the medieval theologians, or any human source, or from claims to have a private spiritual revelation.

This statement wraps up the exposition of the scripture principle nicely.

Ambrose, Gregory, Jerome and Augustine in the window of Cologne Cathedral (1848).

Good and necessary consequences

George Gillespe (1613-48) was a leading Scottish member of the Westminster Assembly. He explained his view of good and necessary circumstances and how we should use reason in understanding the Bible.
"That necessary consequences from the written Word of God do sufficiently and strongly prove the consequences or conclusion, if theoretical, to be a certain divine truth which ought to be believed, and, if practical, to be a necessary duty which we are obliged unto, jure divino. This assertion must be neither so far enlarged as to comprehend the erroneous reasonings and consequences from Scripture which this or that man, or this or that church, apprehend and believe to be strong and necessary consequences … neither yet must it be so far contracted and straitened as the Arminians would have it, who admit no proofs from Scripture, but whether plain explicit texts, such consequences are nulli non obviae … the meaning of the assertion is not that human reason, drawing a consequence from Scripture, can be a ground of our belief or conscience … the consequence itself, is not believed or embraced by the strength of reason, but because it is the truth and will of God … ” George Gillespie Treatise of Miscellany Questions quoted in Leith, Assembly at Westminster John Knox, 1973, 82.
For an interesting article about Gillespe and others see John Fesko "The Puritan Theological Method".

Blogging the Confession 5 - hermeneutics

I’ve been looking forward to working on this installment of the WCF, since it is a chance to look at the principles of the Biblical hermeneutics in the confession.

The rest of the sections of this chapter deal with how we should read God authoritative and sufficient word. The most important theological assertion about hermeneutics is that the “inward illumination of the Spirit of God” is necessary for the saving understanding of Scripture (Section 5). The purpose of the Bible is to bring salvation (not simply to bring conversion but to lead the church in its pilgrimage) and it does this when the Spirit brings saving understanding. This is not a negative statement which portrays the Bible as an obscure book which can only be decoded by the enlightened few. Rather it is a positive statement that Spirit who inspired Scripture will lead his people to understand it. This confidence continues in section 7 which admits that there are parts of the Bible which are not easily understood but affirms that the central message of the Bible can be understood. It is sufficiently clear that the unlearned as well as the learned can grasp its message. The confession does not make this connection, but I think the implication is that the major obstacle to understanding the Bible is not its obscure or difficult message but spiritual deadness of the reader apart from the Spirit.

The framers of the Confession were confident in the clarity of the Bible under the work of the Spirit, but they were not naïve in their approach to interpreting the Bible. They recognised that readers did need to make use of ‘ordinary means’ (careful reading, using a knowledge of grammar and some awareness of the historical and literary context of Biblical texts). The church as a whole needs teachers who can study the Biblical text in its original languages for it is these which are immediately inspired and preserved by God. Today we are more aware of textual critical issues in the Bible than were the members of the Assembly; however we can agree that just as all we need to know from Scripture can be found “in some place of Scripture or other”, so no Confessional doctrine is dependent exclusively on dubious texts.

A further confessional principle of Biblical interpretation is expressed in section 5, that things which can be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence are part of God’s counsel and have his authority. This assertion shows that the Assembly’s method was different to what we might call a more “biblicistic” approach. The most extreme version of this was Socinianism which would accept only doctrines which were explicit in Scripture and allowed no terms or concepts which were not in scripture. In contrast the Assembly was committed the normative authority of Scripture, but allowed that reason had a proper role in the understanding and exposition of Scripture. Rather than crowding this post with more material I’ll put up another post with an interesting quote from George Gillespie on ‘necessary consequences’. The section also allows that there are matters involved in the ordering of the church in which what we might call “common sense” should be applied.

Section 8 expresses two common Reformation hermenutical principles. One is that Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture. The flow of thought is that the Bible is God’s inspired word and so despite complexities and puzzles presents a unified message, which means that when the meaning of one passage is not clear we should expect other passages to illumine and explain it. The section also rejects the medieval tradition of allegorical interpretation of multiple senses of Scriptures and affirms that there is one sense. These hermenutical principles are an entry way into both Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology (but that would be the topic for another blog).

Section 8 affirms the need for translations. It expresses the Reformation view that the Bible belongs to the whole people of God and should be available to all in readable translations so they may be able to worship God and experience his care.