Book Review, Universal Theory.

Book Review, Universal Theory, Kermanshahi.

________________________

Universal Theory. A Model for the Theory of Everything by Mohsen Kermanshahi (Universal Publishers, 2007) is an interesting foray into the higher physical theories and Kermanshahi's brave attempt to unify them all (something no one has been able to do thus far). Unfortunately, Kermanshahi (dentist by profession) falls far short. The entire presentation seems muddled and haphazardly thrown together. There are numerous typological errors and even the English syntax is hard to follow at times (as if English is not the author's first language and if the book is a half-hearted attempt at a translation from a source language).

Like many others thinkers lately consciousness is the key to unify the various theories or what Kermanshahi dubs "singularity." But the main thrust of the argument is not fully fleshed out and seems hanging at some parts and too developed and redundant in others. Universal Theory bears the marks of a layman's attempt at the near impossibility even for the specialists. Much better treaties exist from this standpoint.

_______________

R. E. Aguirre

Book Review. Quantum Enigma

Quantum Enigma, Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (New York. New York, Oxford University Press, 2008) is a study and introduction to Quantum Physics written for popular audiences (math is kept to a minimum). It is a fascinating trek beyond usual quantum studies however in that Rosenblum & Kuttner not only remain at the superficial level of quantum physics (i.e., if it works go with it don't question the deeper philosophical issues) but they dare delve into the more profound implications of quantum physics (i.e., metaphysical questions) especially in relation to the extremely "hard" question of the relation of consciousness to quantum physics, hence their title Quantum Enigma.

The advanced student of quantum physics will find nothing here that he has not already well understood. Yet this is one of the best introductions to quantum physics for the lay reader out there.

_____________________

R. E. Aguirre

Book Review, Deniable Darwin

Book Review, The Deniable Darwin. David Berlinski

The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays by David Berlinski (Discovery Institute Press, 2009) is a fascinating collection of essays and papers by Berlinski mostly published in Commentary but also in other writings. Berlinski by this point is one of the world's best known agnostics (made infamous in his appearance in Ben Stein's Expelled documentary).

What we get in these collections is what one expects from Berlinski, namely sharp and clear reasoning (often overly loquacious) albeit to frustratingly opaque conclusions. The following statement sums up rather well Berlinski's epistemological method, "The plain truth - no trivial thing - of course - is that no one knows" (p. 546). Intelligent Design while possible is far from being proven. Darwinian Evolution is even farther away from being proven. Do we get alternative solutions perhaps? No, none is forthcoming.

The best part of this book (and much to Berlinski's credit) were the various responses from professional critics concerning some of his papers which cast doubt on Darwinian Evolution (and in turn his response to the criticisms). Highlight's for this reader were the fascinating account and interaction between Einstein and Godel (Einstein And Godel. Friendship Between Equals), a summary of the question of irreducible complexity and Darwinian Evolution (Has Darwin Met His Match?), on the problem of human intelligence in light of evolution (On the Origins Of The Mind), human language and evolution (Our Silent Partners), and most impressive of all was the unlikelihood of chance as being the principle starter for life (On The Origins of Life).

All in all a great read and highly recommended for the Christian and non-Christian alike.

Walker, A Diamond in the Protestant Rough?

Williston Walker (1860-1922) was the one time Professor of Ecclesiological Studies at Yale at the turn of the last century. His most famous work remains his A History of the Christian Church, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918), a work which I have heard nothing but praise (from both Protestants and Catholics alike). Yet in all honesty, I feared Walker's History would surely be plagued by either liberal Protestant church reconstructions¹ or possibly a polemical Protestant re-reading of ecclesiastical history,² and I simply did not want to waste either my time or top dollar on.

With this in mind I put off Walker until perhaps I would run into this work in the used book section. For surely of "moderate" Protestant church histories there is no end.³ Why would I really need another Protestant retelling of church history?⁴ Well, this weekend I found Walker's work in the used section and today I took a few hours to polish off the beginning of Walker's History, (that of the Church's origins and the early Church). I must say Walker is a pleasant read and is far superior to most Protestant presentations of ecclesiastical history that I have read, if not, the best.

I have always said that a good barometer of a given tabling of Church history by anyone is the handling of the early church in relationship to the transition from the New Testament period to the second century Church. Many are the pitfalls that can quickly expose the commentators presuppositions.⁵ On the other hand Walker deals with most of the controversial nuances of this early transitional period with studious caution and seems to read the evidence as neutral as possible. ⁶

So then, if you have never read a balanced treatment of church history from a Protestant perspective (or if you happen to cross Walker in the used section) by all means pick this up and note the difference between a professional and a polemicist.

_________________

[1]. Such as that for example of Harnack's or Baur's.

[2]. Such as can be found in every Protestant denominational attempt of a "church history," albeit from their particular skewed viewpoint.

[3]. The few that come to mind but of which I deem "moderate" due to the fact that some bias remains clear in the handling of ecclesiastical history (especially of the formation of the earliest church), Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, (Penguin, 1993); Jaroslav Pelikan, multi-volume The Christian Tradition, (University of Chicago Press); Justo Gonzalez, multi-volume The Story of Christianity, (Harper One), etc.

[4]. Walker was a Congregationalist.

[5]. The Protestant agenda is quickly noticeable, either in the tired out mantra - that the "true" Christian church "fell into darkness" in this transition period only to be rescued by "X" - denominational founder, or in the notion (as in the disciples of Harnack) that the early church was infested by "X" outside philosophy (Hellenization, i.e., Harnack) and thus, "true," "Judaic" Christianity was lost. Not only Protestants are guilty of reading into church history. The transitional period is painted in broad negative strokes by many a (liberal) Catholic scholar, such as in the arrangement given in Richard P. McBrien, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism, (New York: Harper One, 2008), wherein the rise of the mono-episcopal form in the transition period is seen as a power hungry grab for juridical power and the attempt to centralize the church in an outdated hierarchical system.

[6]. This is not to say that I agree with everything Walker says but he has surprised me with his balanced treatment thus far. One fault that comes to mind is Walker's scant interaction with the secondary literature. However, Walker has proven himself well immersed in the common problems in the field of Patristics as it relates to church history.

Origen and the History of Justification: Book Review

     This is a short review of Thomas Scheck (professor of Pastoral Theology, Ave Maria University) book, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans, (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008). 

     This is an elegantly written work by a scholar that is up to date on the best of Origenian and patristic secondary literature, which is in my opinion the best (new) book I read in 2008. It is an important treaty on the massive influence of Origen's commentary on Romans (Scheck is the first English translator of Rufinus's Latin edition of Origen's commentary) on all subsequent theologians of note, whether in a positive direction (i.e., Augustine, Pelagius, William of St. Thierry, Erasmus) or negative (Luther and Melanchton). 

     The thesis of the book is that Origen has had a much more influential role that is usually ascribed to him (especially on Pauline interpretation and soteriology/justification) most notably in the Catholic tradition. Scheck graces us with important correctives of among others (J. N. D. Kelly, Karl Adam, etc) on various topics, and also acts as a fair and balanced observer of the Protestant / Catholic debate over justification. It is also one of the best historical theological accounts of the doctrine of Justification around (as touching on Origen and his particular influence). 

     The book is highly technical and definitely assumes some familiarity of historical theology and patristics by the reader (and is not cheap - $60) but it is worth the price for the specialist or for the educated layman who wants to break into the realm of academic study. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

____________________

 R. E. Aguirre

Paradoseis Journal

The Lord's Supper: Five Views; Book Review.

     I usually enjoy reading the "5 views on...," or "4 views on...," series, which normally display Protestant scholars debating a certain issue or doctrine. So I was delighted in seeing a Roman Catholic participant in this book, The Lord's Supper: Five Views, published by IVP Academic, 2008. ¹ 

     I quickly noticed however a change in direction in this book from others of this type. Gone is the strict exegesis and historical exchanges that are usually conducted in these types of multi-view presentations. This book is one that turns on ecumenical cordiality rather than swift and passionate debate. ² So then, with this in mind let me give a brief analysis of the various views that were presented. 

The Roman Catholic View ³

     My great hope for a strong position based primarily on the evidence of the patristic testimony (i.e., history) was a great disappointment. ⁴ Instead what we are treated with is an exercise in ecumenical discussion, highlighting what Catholics and non-Catholics have more in common than not. Again, such a thesis has its time and place but in a polemical work such as this, it is not it. Gros' presentation is extremely weak as a defense of the real presence in the Eucharist, namely the Catholic formulation - Transubstantiation. In the eyes of the non-specialist (the target audience) focusing on ecumenical dialogue rather than strictly presenting the position is to leave your view open for criticism from many angles. ⁵

 The Lutheran View ⁶

     As much as the Roman Catholic presentation was a great disappointment, the Lutheran presentation was a great surprise. Here we had a defense of the real presence of Christ in the elements with verve and power. ⁷  We are also given a helpful explanation on the differences within Lutheranism on the Eucharist as well as some notable citations of the patristic fathers for support. 

 The Reformed View ⁸

 What we are given at the hands of Van Dyk is a succinct and able summary of Reformed thought on this doctrine (Calvin in particular.) There is no attempt at a defense of her view or an attempt at a refutation of the other views. In spirit the presentation of Van Dyk was unconvincing as it was passive. The history of interpretation on the Eucharist (patristic witness) is simply passed over save a short paraphrase of Augustine, who is misinterpreted in my opinion. 

 The Baptist View ⁹

     The Baptist position in my mind is glaringly self-refuting as Olson (its presenter) seems at pains to prove? He begins by straining to display the diversity and disagreement within the plethora of Baptist denominations and seems confused on whom exactly to pin the iconic example as the true Baptist understanding. Do we go with the newer wave of Baptist scholarship which has argued more for a sacramental understanding of the Eucharist? Or with the older Baptist theologians which have understood it more as a memorial ordinance? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle? Olson seems a bit lost and his ultimate choice as the representative voice seems nothing more than a hypothesis. This seems manifestly in contradiction to the clarion call of Paul, the New Testament and the early church, which is theological uniformity at all costs. 

The Pentecostal View ¹⁰

 If Olson seemed a bit disturbed at the divergences of theological thought within his tradition, Karkkainen embraces the emergent and multifaceted nature of Pentecostalism in general and its view on the Eucharist in particular. One can hardly even try to pin down a representative voice in this tradition but who cares at this point, would argue Karkkainen, pentecostalism is still in its formative infancy and much work and development needs to be done. With this underpinning in mind it is nearly futile to give a "defense" of any sort (this would apply to the Baptist presentation as well). Simple summaries of various thinkers within the Pentecostal tradition is expressed.

     In conclusion this work can be suggested as a starting point for the non-specialist seeking to find summaries and perhaps secondary literature for further reading at best. One can only dream of a better line up with exegetical rigor and spunk, including perhaps an Anglican and Eastern Orthodox contributor as well. ¹¹

_________________

1. To my knowledge this is the first of these kind of books (Protestant / popular) with a Roman Catholic contributor. The Catholic (episcopalian) view point however has been defended by Peter Toon (admirably) on the entry on ecclesiology, Who Runs the Church?. 

2. While I appreciate ecumenical dialogue, I prefer strong and passionate positional defenses, especially in a work of this nature. 

3. I noticed that the views are given basically in historical order, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal. The Roman Catholic position is given by Brother Jeffrey Gros, Professor of Church History, Memphis Theological Seminary. 

4. Compare Gros with Toon who uses history to his advantage in arguing for the episcopal system of church governance. The argument from history has no real retort and if correctly and fairly handled is a devastating blow to all non-Catholic positions. 

5. Besides reading the primary writings of the fathers themselves who clearly and unambiguously hold to the real presence of Jesus Christ in the elements of the Bread and Wine, I suggest among dozens and dozens of full length works and monographs defending the Catholic view of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation); David Power, The Sacrifice We Offer: The Tridentine Dogma and Its Reinterpretation. (New York: Crossroads, 1987); James T. O'Connor, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005); Kevin Irwin, Models of the Eucharist. (New York: Paulist Press, 2005); Kenan Osborne, Community, Eucharist, and Spirituality. (Liguori: Liguori Press, 2007). 

6. Was given by John Stephenson, Professor of Historical Theology, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, Ontario. 

7. I think Stephenson's contribution the strongest in the book in terms of style and presentation. He is first and foremost interested in defending the real presence at the cost of ecumenical dialogue (and he offends half of the other contributors in the process and interestingly attacking the Reformed position more than any other). 

8. Presented by Leanne Van Dyk, Professor of Reformed Theology at Western Theological Seminary, Michigan. 

9. Given by Roger Olson, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Texas. 

10. Is supplied by Veli-Matti Karkkainen, Professor of Systematic Theology - Fuller Seminary, Pasadena. 

11. I would nominate as a "fantasy line up" Joseph Fitzmyer or Luke Johnson for the Roman Catholic position, keep John Stephenson for the Lutherans, Robert Raymond or Ken Gentry for the Reformed, Peter Toon for the Anglicans, Millard Erickson for the Baptists and Walter Hollenweger for Pentecostalism. 

 

Mary in the New Testament: Book Review.

 This collaborative work on the aspects of Mary in the New Testament (and in the second century literature as well) was first published in 1978. Usually a project dealing mainly with NT material published in the late seventies would be considered dated by now. However, this book is unique in the sense that it is not by a single author but it is a collaboration of New Testament specialists, and specialists from differing theological traditions (Protestant / Catholic)¹. Therefore, one is treated not to a single view point on Mariology but an overall consensus voice of this committee of scholars².

The final product that we are given is one of the sanest and controlled outlooks on Mary via the data of the New Testament (and the second century) that still holds water today. The contributors are masterfully familiar with the best of the secondary literature in question. Highlights of the book are:

  - The mature handling of the difficult textual and grammatical problems over the question, did Jesus have siblings or not? according to the New Testament, (this discussion was led by Paul Achtemeier and Karl Donfried.) 

- Raymond Brown leads a jaw dropping exegesis and overview of the interpretive history over questionable Marian inferences that have been drawn from the New Testament. Such views as Mary / Daughter of Zion motif, Mary / Ark of the Covenant motif (that are endlessly peddled today by popular Catholic apologists) Brown uncovers as nothing more than poor eisegesis. 

- Fitzmyer's entry on Mary in the book of Revelation is astounding³. Fitzmyer demonstrates that all views that see in the woman figure of Rev 12 as primarily referring to Mary face two insurmountable difficulties: First, the earliest patristic commentary that we have available see this primarily as a reference to the Church. Secondly the best modern commentators do not see this as singularly referring to Mary. 

- Where this book could have gone horribly wrong is in its treatment of the late first and second century corpus⁴. However, Elaine Pagels and K. Froehlich to a superb job at presenting an even handed and fair investigation into the matter⁵.

Overall, Mary the mother of Jesus is presented in her historical context fairly and accurately. The contributors while admitting what one is hard pressed to truly uncover a portrait of the historical Mary through the NT and the second century (since little is actually written of her) they give on the the finest efforts that has been written.

__________________

1. I first read this work in 1987 and thought it was time for a second and fresh analysis (and it was well worth the time). The contributors are some of the best and brightest of critical Catholic and Protestant (mostly Lutheran) of the time. Such scholars such as Paul Achtemeier, Reginald Fuller, Gerhard Krodel, John Reumann, J. Louis Martyn, along with arguably the greatest Roman Catholic NT specialists of the twentieth century; Raymond Brown and  Joseph Fitzmyer (among others). 

2. Where there is disagreement among the committee it is stated in footnotes. It must be stated that these scholars are not exactly the most conservative bunch that could have been assembled for such a project. On the other hand they would not be considered wildly liberal and I think such a group (moderately critical) gives the best opinion in that they are not driven to guard nor champion a particular theological stance, (too conservative nor too progressive). This naturally does not apply to every member of this ecumenical committee, each should be weighed on a case by case basis. 

3. One could only hope for a full length treatment of Revelation at the hands of Fitzmyer. 

4. One only need to read one of the popular Protestant and sometimes Catholic/Orthodox treatments of Patristic interpretation in order to witness how theological presuppositions tamper with the primary writings. 

5. Not every single point is convincing yet I found the treatment like a breath of fresh air. 

    

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Vol. 2: Review.

  In Protestantism, Systematic Theologies are as common as the flu. Every denomination it seems has it's own Systematic: A. H. Strong (Baptist), L. Berkhof (Reformed), W. Pannenburg/ K. Barth (Liberal Lutheran), N. Geisler (Arminian Evangelical), R. Raymond (Presbyterian), are but a few of the "modern" systematics. Catholicism as well is no stranger to the systemic presentation of Christian doctrine. Aquinas' Summa is a herculean effort that has never been matched. Every century was witness to a slew of Catholic presentations that were famous for the litany of thinkers, theologians, commentators and fathers that they drew upon to offer a theological history of the Christian faith. Modern Catholic historical/systematic theologies abound. The ever developing Denzinger-Schonmetzer which began in the late 19th century comes to mind, as does Rahner's Foundations, and Dupuis & Neuner's The Christian Faith as well. 

And so it came that I stumbled upon, Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). It is a two volume set and I selected volume two based on the doctrines that were covered. While a bit dated (almost twenty years old) I was a bit surprised at the relatively conservative tone of the scholarship in a decade (mostly 80's) where liberalism ran rampant (even in Catholic critical scholarship). 

 Michael Fahey opened the discussions up with the entry on the Church which was a great disappointment. It was one of the more liberal entries denying and challenging most traditional Roman Catholic ecclesiology and especially uneven on Papal authority and its historical origins. 

 Fahey is followed by the entry on sin & grace by Roger Haight which is an excellent historical examination of these doctrines in particular and soteriology in general. Elizabeth Johnson then gives us the entry on the saints and Mary. It is an astounding summary (not defense) of Mariology (and the saints) in ancient and modern Catholic thought. 

 Regis Duffy contributes with an overview of Sacramental theology in general, followed by entries on Baptism & Confirmation, Penance and Anointing of the Sick. On baptism we are given a very strong summation and definition (with an especially illuminating discussion on infant baptism and the immense secondary literature that is involved). In contrast, Confirmation seemed a bit skim. On Penance, Duffy gives us a tight but poignant historical sketch. On Anointing of the Sick we are treated to a very succinct articulation behind the philosophy of this practice. 

David Power comes next with two entries; on the Eucharist and on Order's. The discussion on the Eucharist is noticeably tainted with liberalism yet Power manages to give an important overview of Catholic thought on this Sacrament. Moreover, Power asks some penetrating questions on the limitations of much of modern Eucharistic theology. The entry on Order's is an intelligent account on the origins of the episcopal form of Church government (but not every single point convinces). 

Francis Schussler Fiorenza is the scholar who presents us with the article on Marriage. While heavily liberal/critical it is one of the better presentations on all the various questions surrounding the theology of marriage I have read. The last entry is that on Eschatology written by Monika Hellwig. It is by far the weakest of all the entries in this systematic theology. It hardly touches on the multifarious questions that surround this heated doctrine, especially in modern Christianity and not all will follow Hellwig in many of her liberal eschatological/soteriological conclusions. 

In conclusion, if you want a detailed analysis on the origins of modern Roman Catholic theology this is a great place to start. But be forewarned, the scholarship is far from conservative. I still have yet to see a true enterprise from a panel of top Catholic (conservative) scholars that can rival the scope of something like this.  

 

"A High View of Scripture?" Book Review.

 The book is,  A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon, published by Baker 2007 and written by Dr. Craig D. Allert¹ It has been positively reviewed by some close friends of mine but I have not had the time to get to it, until now. 

 In a nutshell, this is perhaps the single best work I have ever read from a Protestant perspective on such touchy issues as the formation of Scripture, the relationship of tradition to Scripture in the early Church (and the Regula Fidei) and most importantly how much of todays Evangelicals have misunderstood and misinterpreted the raw data of history and the patristic fathers. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for a balanced and fair examination of these tuff issues. 

 Dr. Allert represents a growing group of Protestant scholars² that are putting tradition (the fathers) back into Protestantism, just as the original (non radical) Protestant Reformers envisioned. Allert is especially one to follow since he is completely at home with all the issues and the secondary literature. 

 Allert's other works are - Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, published by Brill, 2002.

As well as Allert's informative entry on sola Scriptura and tradition in Evangelical Quarterly 76 which can be read on line here. 

Bravo for sane Protestant scholarship. 

_________

1. Dr. Allert is chair of religious studies at Trinity Western University, Langley B.C.  

2. Such as among others, Christopher Hall, Lee McDonald, D. H. Williams, Stephen Holmes, Kenneth Tanner, et al. 

 

  

Book Review: "A Pocket Guide to the Bible"

"A Pocket Guide to the Bible" written by Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Scott Hahn, published by Our Sunday Visitor, 2008 is an insightful and compact (79 p.) work introducing the various facets that make up the Bible.

Apparently written with the layman in mind (not a single footnote or reference is found) Pocket Guide however delivers much for it's slim size. Hahn begins with a foundational discussion on how the Bible is to be conceptionalized, namely a book not for it's own sake but rather a book that is formed out of a particular historical community and for preperation in this particular community (the Church). The Bible is living in that it is part of a greater organic whole not to be viewed as a stand alone literary composition.

In easy to understand language Hahn explains the blueprint of the Bible, it's divisions, and compartments. A helpful discussion on the formation of the canon of Scripture is given along with an explanation of why Catholic and Protestant bible's differ. Hahn's Pocket Guide is already leaps and bounds ahead of other small popular introductions of the Bible in that it gives a cogent presentation of the Church's role in the correct interpretation of Scripture. Tradition has been safeguarded by the Holy Spirit for this task writes Hahn.

Professor Hahn then gives us a safe navigation through the often muddy channels of biblical hermeneutics (the process of reading and understanding the Bible in it's proper literary context). All the major genre's are covered (i.e., Poetic, Narrative, etc). He then discloses what I found to be a great tip for those looking for a guide or plan for reading the Bible throughout the year.

The concluding chapters gives us brief but helpful outlines of every book of the Bible and a fantastic topical index of the major themes and events in Scripture. In conclusion, Pocket Guide while being much too basic for the advanced student of the Bible is perfect as a compact hand-out to anyone that you find asking basic questions of the Bible and wants a tool that will help them go to the next level in understanding the Christian Bible and where it comes from.

This review was written as part of The Catholic Company product reviewer program. Visit The Catholic Company, - http://www.catholiccompany.com/ to find more information on A Pocket Guide to the Bible, - http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111242/Pocket-Guide-to-Bible/

Book Review: Roots of the Reformation, Karl Adam.

Roots of the Reformation was written by the late German Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the infamous University of Tubingen in the first half of the twentieth century. It is a small work but prodigious in learning, extremely well written and free from logical fallacies. It reaches a happy medium in the state of discussion between Catholicism and Protestantism, it is not severely polemical nor blindly ecumenical.

What we are given by Adam is a masterful presentation of the roots (philosophical and cultural), the reasons for the Protestant Reformation. The very first chapter "Weakness in the Church" gives the main origin for the reforms, namely corruption, abuses and underhanded tactics by some not all of the Catholic clergy,

"The Pope's yearly income was greater than that of any German Emperor. John XXII, for instance, died leaving three quarters of a million gold coins in his treasury: a figure so high, considering the values and conditions of the time, that it was bound to have a catastrophic effect on the believer when he pictured against this background the poor tent-maker Paul, or the still poorer fisherman Peter, coming with dusty sandals to Rome and bringing nothing with them but a deep and noble desire to preach Christ and to die for Christ."¹

Or in another example Adam notes,

"Innocent VIII, in his bull Summis desiderantes (1484), gave the Dominicans in Constance plenary powers in the matter of witch-burning, and threatened with ecclesiastical punishment anyone who opposed the prosecution of witches. He thus did all that the highest ecclesiastical authority could do to encourage and legalize the obsession. Christ had healed those possessed by devils, but now, in the name of the same Christ, they were to be burnt."²

In chapter two "Luther" Adam records the rise of the German reformer and his quest to his particular understanding of Christian theology. A fascinating psychological reading of Luther is given as well as his dependence on Ockhamism for his novel ideas on justification and the nature of the church. Luther's departure was not (contrary to popular belief) a careful study of the Greek Scripture in one hand and the slogan of ad fontes on the other but rather was primarily driven by subjective-esoteric epiphanies of Christian truth,

"it was not the objective spirit of the Church's tradition speaking and witnessing in the Church's teaching which interpreted this objective word of revelation, but his own spirit alone; not the We of the members of Christ inspired by a common faith and love, but his own unique, individual I. In this formal, though not material, sense Luther was always a subjectivist."³

Adam then gives a thorough defense of the Catholic doctrine of Sola Gratia - and that it was not originated by Luther but was already held and defended by Catholics for 1500 years. Moreover, Luther viciously attacked the Papacy, Adam must be quoted on this in full,

"It was night indeed in a great part of Christendom. Such is the conclusion of our survey of the end of the fifteenth century: amongst the common people, a fearful decline of true piety into religious materialism and morbid hysteria; amongst the clergy, both lower and higher, widespread worldliness and neglect of duty; and amongst the very Shepards of the Church, demonic ambition and sacrilegious perversion...Had Martin Luther then arisen with his marevlous gifts of mind and heart...had he brought all these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of the time...had he remained a faithful member of his Church...then indeed we should today be his grateful debtors. He would be forever our great Reformer...comparable to Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint of the German people...But - and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation and of German Christianity - he let the warring spirits drive him to overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church Herself, founded upon Peter, bearing through the centuries the successio apostolica; he let them drive him to commit what St. Augustine called the greatest sin with which a Christian can burden himself; he set up altar against altar and tore in pieces the one Body of Christ."⁴

The Catholic Church due to all this reformed herself. Abuses have been cut away and the focus of Christ and Apostolic teaching has been re-emphasized. It is the conclusion of professor Adam that had Luther come today, he would not protest the Church as violently as he did.
_______________________
[End Notes.]

1. Roots of the Reformation. 14.

2. Ibid., 25.

3. Ib., 42, Adam's emphasis.

4. Ib., 25-26.

Book Review: "The Future of Justification", John Piper.

This is a short review of "The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T Wright" published by Crossway, 2007 and written by the able Reformed baptist scholar and pastor - John Piper.

This work is typical Piper, rigorous, exegetical and completely immersed in the most up to date secondary literature on the subject he is taking on. The thesis of the book is to expose the novel views of the Anglican scholar N.T Wright (especially Wright's understanding of justification). Wright's epiphany on justification while reading Romans in the 70's is now legendary. Everyone got it wrong he tells us. St. Paul is not attacking a "works righteous" system but rather, false ethnocentric "badges." Justification then for Wright is God recognizing people as either in the covenant community or not.

This proposition then leads to many other conclusions in Wright, mainly that works play a much more important role than what is usually assigned to it by Protestantism. Following the New Testament, Wright sees the entirety of a Christian's life as the substance of what will be judged by God in the last day. [1]

As expected, Piper being true to his Protestant ideals goes to town on Wright. Wright has placed himself outside of "traditional Protestantism" and has allied himself with the academic school of the "New Perspective" on Paul, (with figures such as E. Sanders, James Dunn, R.B Hays, etc). Wright denies the classical Protestant formulation of imputed Christ righteousness, Piper argues and he gives a long litany of proofs from Wright's writings.

While I disagree with Piper with many of his exegetical and theological conclusions, one argument in my opinion convincingly refutes Wright. Piper unmasks Wright's view on justification for what it is, namely an unprecedented novel claim, unseen in the entire history of the church. [2] This argument I find very ironic when used at the hands of Protestant scholars. [3]

In conclusion, The Future of Justification is one of the better refutations of Tom Wright from a "tradtional Protestant" standpoint.

________________

[End notes]

[1]. What I found interesting was Wright's similarity to St. Augustine on the role of works in faith.

[2]. Wright not only acknowledges this but embraces it. He is only being true he tells us, to Luther's maxim, semper reformanda at no matter what the cost. "Here I stand" claims Wright, against both the Protestant and Catholic claims on justification. And who is there to tell me otherwise asks Wright, since as Protestants we adhere to sola Scriptura and thus, conscience is Wright's only authority. Wright's attitude on tradition is an especially disturbing trend in Anglicanism. The modern Anglican scholar is a lover of experimentation and new teachings.

[3]. I have even read Protestant refutations of radical Protestant claims that were entirely lifted from Catholic scholars that first employed them against Protestantism!

Book Review: Translating Truth.

I finally got some time to read this little book "Translating Truth, the Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation" published by Crossway (2005). It is basically five essays from five different scholars responding to and defending the essential literal (EL) translation method.

The work starts off with Wayne Grudem's1 entry, "Are only some words breathed out by God?". In this entry, Grudem makes a strong argument that the dynamic method of Biblical translation fails on the serious count of hamstringing theological exegesis from the text. Unjust omissions, wild paraphrasing, additions and the like leads to a poor at best, possibility of teaching theology from dynamic translations. Grudem presents many examples of the way dynamic theory disables the source language and in turn directly affects theology2. As far as what translations then should we follow, Grudem opts for either the ESV, NASB, NET, HCSB3.

Next up is Leland Ryken4 who debunks the "Five Myths about Essentially Literal Bible Translation". Ryken abolishes the strawman argument that claims "word worship" on the part of adherents to (EL). Secondly, Ryken displays why essentially literal method is far from "naivite" and on the contrary, the ignorance is mostly being exhibited from the dynamic camp. Thirdly, the accusation that (EL) amounts to transliteration is almost to ridiculous to merit a serious response but nonetheless Ryken exposes the specious reasoning behind this charge. Fourthly, Ryken responds to those that say (EL) method involves interpretive lexical decisions by stating the obvious, of course it does, however (EL) has a better guiding principle with fidelity to the source language rather than subjective paraphrasing. Finally, Ryken shows why (EL) is far from being "obscure and opague" but rather (EL) is transparent in it's renderings from the source language, much different than what can be said of dynamic translation which makes the source language disappear under subjective decisions.

C. John. Collins5 follows with his entry, "What the Reader wants and what the Translator can Give". In which he gives us an interesting test case on translation principles, namely the Greek text of 1 John. In contrast to (EL) which displays the repetitions and other nuances of the Greek, these important subtleties are lost in dynamic renderings.

V.S Poythress6 gives us his entry, "Truth and Fullness of Meaning" in which he gives us a historical overview of the field of linguistics and how this has influenced Eugene Nida7. Nida's model of translation theory is but one of many Poythress shows and to claim that it is the best method at the derision of (EL) is simply bombastic.

Bruce Winter8 gives us, "Revelation versus Rhetoric" a synopses showing that St. Paul consciously avoided the grand rhetorical sytle of his day for the humble words of the power of the gospel. However all sides grant this and it is not apparent how Winter ties this to translation principles.

All in all this short work (which I read in one sitting) is a strong introduction and defense of the esentially literal translation method. It exposes the fallacies that Nida and company have employed to deride the (EL) position and at the same time proves the inadequacies of dynamic translation theory.

______________________

1. Research professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Sometimes considered "controversial" among conservative Protestants for his distinctive views such as the belief that charismatic gifts continue in the church today, see his The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Grudem was also exposed as holding Trinitarian subordinationism by Kevin Giles in Jesus and the Father (which I review below).

2. One example Grudem cites is John 12:27 which reads in the (EL) ESV, "Now is my soul troubled..." the key word being the rendering of ψυχή. For no apparent reason dynamic translations (such as the CEV) decline a literal rendering of ψυχή as "soul" (as most EL translations show) and translate instead as, "Now I am deeply troubled..." a rendering that does away with Jesus' soul (and can thus bolster an Apollinarian reading of the text).

3. Grudem then gives useful insights on why he does not like the otherwise (EL) translations KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV.

4. Professor of English at Wheaton College.

5. Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary at St. Louis.

6. Famed professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminister at Philadelphia.

7. The guru and main voice for the dynamic method of translation.

8. Warden at Tyndale House - Cambridge.

_______________________

"αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει"

Book Review: Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

I have read John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua probably around a dozen times or so in the last decade. And I bear witness to the maxim that everytime you read a work with the passing of time and more life experience it reads different everytime. Such is the case with Newman's Apologia which is a sort of an autobiographical account of his conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

Centered around various letters that he wrote to a number of people throughout his life it is a fascinating account of a man's change of mind on religious matters. While Newman here does touch on theological matters the Apologia is more of an account of correspondance(1). I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Newman's philosophical honesty about Catholicism in light of history is the clearest and most well thought out articulation of the issues in modern times. Nearly to a man every great convert to Roman Catholicism in the last few centuries quickly name Newman as a great influence in their transition.

Newman's charm is that he is one of the finest students of patristics yet speaks of the issues with such entrancing eloquence. He quotes St. Augustine's Contra epistolam Parmeniani. 3, 4, 24, "Securus judicat orbis terrarum" as one of the principle reasons that crushed his already weakening security of Anglicanism,

"By those great words of the ancient father, interpreting and summing up the long and varied course of ecclesiastical history, the theory of the Via Media was absolutely pulverized" (p. 99).

The dreaded realization hit him like a ton of bricks that history flies in the face of Protestantism,

"My Stronghold was antiquity; now here, in the middle of the fifth century, I found, as it seemed to me, Christendom of the sixteenth (the reformation) and the nineteenth (his own time) centuries reflected. I saw my face in that mirror, and I was a Monophysite. The church of the Via Media was in the position of the Oriental communion (the Eastern chuches), Rome was, where she now is; and the Protestants were the Eutychians" (p. 96).

Newman like many others is being here intellectually honest. Protestant (and Anglican) dogma is for the most part a novelty in the history of the orthodox Christianity. Every serious student of history must deal with this fact(2). In the final analysis, Newman's Apologia will serve as a light and a guide to countless generations of the future that would seek the truth concerning the historic church throughout history.

________________________

(1). Newman is a lot more theological in his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

(2). This intellectual rigorism as applied to ecclesiological church form contra the vain objections of Protestants is brought to the fore by the excellent defense of Episcopalianism by Peter Toon in, Who Run's the Church? (a four way debate featuring the episcopalian, presbyterian, single-elder congregational and plural-elder congregational traditions).

_____________________

"αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει ."

Book Review: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

After reading and reviewing Dave Armstrong's less than stellar "Catholic Verses" (review below) I was pointed to this work by the same author, published by Sophia Press 2003.

What we are giving here (despite the pleading of the author that he is a mere layman) is a detailed, well written, non-technical defense of Roman Catholicism. Sounds familiar? Well probably, but Armstrong takes a braver approach, namely defending Catholicism not from a patristic-historical stance but he bases his arguments fromn Scripture (with the occasional citation of a father or council as the need arises). Apparently, this work is aimed for the educated layman or clergy since Armstrong does not deal with any of the best and modern secondary literature on the passages in question but does cite well known (mostly Protestant) general reference works (usually of the first half of the 20th century).

· Chapter 1 "Bible and Tradition". An excellent introductory treatment surrounding the foundational hermeneutical questions that distinguish the Protestant approach from the Roman Catholic (a very helpful chart of the patristic acceptance of the books of the New Testament in the early church is given).

· Chapter 2 "Justification". Armstrong gives us a solid introduction to the difficult question of justification from a Catholic perspective. He gives an analysis and critique of the Protestant formulation "sola fide" and continues to show from the Scriptures how the broader encompassing view of Catholicism is much closer to the evidence of Scripture.

· Chapter 3 "Development of Doctrine". Basing his argument on the philosophical foundation of John H Newman and the Catholic fathers Armstrong erects an unbreakable fortress of logic proving that the early Christians using the concepts found in Scripture and the Regula Fidei, hammered out Christian theology with the guidance of God the Holy Spirit.

· Chapter 4 "The Eucharist". Without a doubt Armstrong's presentation of the Eucharist is one of the clearest and most cogent treatments found in the popular literature.

· Chapter 5 "The Sacrifice of the Mass". Armstrong on the Mass is one of the weaker entries in this work. Many of the conclusions from Scripture seem rather stretched and convoluted and ultimately fail to convince (obviously what makes this doctrine shine is the testimony of the fathers).

· Chapter 6 "The Communion of the Saints". Again we are given a fresh and cogent defense of the Communion of the Saints from a non technical level. Armstrong is nimble around Scripture and proves many steps leading to innvocation but in my opinion fails to prove the final link in this chain, the actual innvocation of the saints.

· Chapter 7 "Purgatory". A well written presentation indeed in which Armstrong demolishes the awkward "third state" theologies of the Protestants and gives a strong defense of the Catholic interpretation of the third state, namely purgatory.

· Chapter 8 "Penance". A sober defense and clear demarcation of the Catholic conception of penance against Protestant complaints. What Armstrong convincingly demonstrates from Scripture is the embryonic stages of penance, the question is, does he prove without a doubt the later Roman Catholic formulation of penance?

· Chapter 9 "The Blessed Virgin Mary". An eye opening and educational presentation teaching what Catholics actually believe concerning Mary (and how some of the first reformers held high views of Mary). In the final analysis, Armstrong fails to convince on many points (some of the scientific exegesis of pericopes are very light and stretched beyond any credulity).

· Chapter 10 "The Papacy and Infallibility". Another informative treatment at the hands of Armstrong. He mounts a mammoth Scriptural defense of the primacy of Peter (50 Scriptural points to be exact) and convinces on many of the points.

· We are then given 6 short appendixes. Ap 1 on the so called "perspecuity of Scripture", the fantasy that Protestants have invented which holds that even the most uneducated field worker can correctly understand the deep theological tenets of Christianity (doctrines which took the best minds of Christendom no less than 500 years to hammer out). Armstrong then continues to demolish the Protestant misnomer that holds "unity in the essentials and flexibility in the secondary issues". There is no such thing as secondary issues Armstrong correctly notes, logically the house of theological cards stands or falls in its entirety, you cannot pick and choose ending up with a frankensteinian theology. In Ap 2 Armstrong gives us a short by penetrating critique on the schismatic nature of Protestantism, a nature we are warned about again and again by the testimony of the New Testament. Ap 3 mounts an impressive defense of the inspiration of the so-called Apocryphal books. Ap 4 is a short defense of the celibacy of priests under the Western Latin Roman rites ( I remain unconvinced over mandatory celibacy).

In the final analysis, what Dave Armstrong has given us in this his magnum opus is a clear and very informative presentation of the basis of Roman Catholicism from the Scriptures. Not all points are convincing but at the very least the reader will be challenged time and again from cogent arguments extracted from the Old and New Testaments.

__________________________________________________________

Book Review: "The Catholic Verses".

A few years ago (2004) I read this work by author Dave Armstrong which is a Roman Catholic apologetic piece sly'ly entitled, "The Catholic Verses, 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants" which is a play on words contra Luther's 95 nailed thesis.

It is a basic introduction to Catholic apologetics - I presume aimed for the Catholic layman since in depth notes, rigorous exegesis of the Greek text and/or pericope is missing and we are only given the most general introduction on key issues in the heated debates between Catholics and Protestants today.

Armstrong does however a good job wrestling with both Luther and Calvin (among others) on strong issues and I especially liked the small but concise entry on 'The Church' and her authority concerning the philosophy of hermeneutics. The discussion of justification is handled well and I particularly like Armstrong's citations of John Newman on this issue. Most other issues are likewise given small but able treatments but the weaker entries were the defense of the sacrament of penance, communion of the saints, purgatory and the prayers for the dead seemed a bit strecthed. Highlights of the book were the entries on Priestly celibacy, and the notorious "Sin of Onan" or in other words, contraception.

All in all, a good 'short' read and highly recommended for students new to Catholic apologetics. For the serious scholar look elsewhere.

Jesus and the Father, a Symptom of the Larger Disease.

In 2006, Kevin Giles, Anglican scholar and vicar of St. Michael's Church in North Carlton Australia published this book, "Jesus and the Father, Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity". In many ways it is a defense and further exposition on his earlier work, "The Trinity and Subordinationism".

The importance of this book both in it's target field (the doctrine of the Trinity) and in the larger scope (the state of Evangelicalism) cannot be understated. Giles convincingly makes his case in the following points: First, that modern Evangelicals have strayed away from the historic, orthodox, Catholic, doctrinal formulation of the Trinity and have come extremely close to various Arian heretical reformulations of it. Several popular Evangelical scholars are taken to task on this point such as George Knight III, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Norman Geisler, John Frame, Robert Letham and Robert Doyle to name but a few. No denomination or Protestant tradition is safe from the penetrating analysis that Giles applies using the weapons of the historic orthodox voice, the regula fide. Evangelical, Reformed and Anglican scholars are exposed as being severly lacking in the proper understanding of historical theology.

The main point of contention is that modern scholars are defending the eternal subordination of Jesus in authority and function to the Father. If this surprising revelation is not enough, these scholars use this proposition to defend the 'hierarchical' view that a women should be subordinate to her husband, since we are told, this is the example Jesus shows us in His relationship with the Father. In 300+ pages Giles inspects this modern innovation in painstaking detail exposing it's weakness on many grounds from both the voices of the early fathers, Calvin and modern conservative scholarship. Giles sober handling of the issues and breath of knowledge on the secondary literature is impressive and I must quote him in length on this point, "I have read all the contemporary books on the Trinity on the shelves of the university library I use, as well as other books on this topic I have borrowed elsewhere or bought, including all the conservative evangelical works that endorse the eternal sobordination of the Son" (p.169).

What we as Catholics say is that this one issue (and a major distortion it is) is but one symptom of the larger disease of modern evangelicalism. Modern Christianity has built it's house on sand rather than on the solid unshaking rock of history. And with the smallest of winds, bits and pieces fall over and exposes the emptiness inside. Imagine, what is the central piece, the very cornerstone of our faith, who our God is - is mangled and reinvented in modern garb. It is not difficult to prove then that the remaining tenets of our Catholic-historic faith have been similarly misunderstood and reinvented. To the credit of this great Anglican scholar he admits as much when he speaks very highly of Roman Catholic scholars on this issue, such as Edmund Fortman, Karl Rahner and Yves Conger to name but a few. I close tonight quoting Giles again on page 169 of this great work, "I have not found a Roman Catholic theologian who gives any support to the idea that the Son is eternally subordinated in any way".

___________________________