yinkahdinay's Xanga

Good-bye Langley, Good-bye Xanga

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:35:04 GMT

Well, this is it. The end of the road. Later this week the moving truck comes and we will be loading our stuff and saying farewell to British Columbia. Hamilton awaits -- we will be arriving there next week Friday, God willing. We are looking forward to the move.

Along with the move also comes a change in my blogging. I started on Xanga in 2005 with Yinkadene. After a year or so, I shut that down and did something a little different with Yinkahdinay. Originally, my intent with blogging was to connect with the younger crowd in our church -- many of whom were on Xanga. However, eventually they all migrated to Facebook. My audience changed and so my Xanga began to morph into something different.

At this point, I am saying good-bye to Xanga. It has served me well, but I would like to have something where I can integrate resources with a blog. Xanga does not provide that capability. Wordpress does. So, this is my last post on Xanga. This site will remain available, but from now my blogging will be taking place at www.bredenhof.ca See you there!

Book Review of In Living Color

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:34:29 GMT

In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace, Daniel R. Hyde, Grandville: Reformed Fellowship Inc., 2009. Paperback, 192 pages, $13.00 USD.

It’s fair to say that the lawfulness of pictures of Christ is virtually taken for granted in many Reformed communities. Especially when it comes to the teaching and discipling of children, almost everyone assumes that a story Bible with pictures (including pictures of the Lord Jesus) is a given. The status quo is that, while we would perhaps never dream of having pictures of the Son of God in our worship services, it is quite acceptable to have them elsewhere especially for educational or evangelistic purposes.

In this book, Daniel Hyde (United Reformed minister in Oceanside, California) challenges the status quo on images of Christ. He does so first of all using the Word of God, but he also brings in the witness of the Reformed confessions and church history. According to Hyde, images of Christ are not lawful and have no place in either our worship services or our daily lives. While God can certainly use crooked means to accomplish his purposes, his will is that we use his means in propagating the Christian faith, whether with our children or with adults.

In the introduction, the author gives the rationale for the book. It emerges from discussions with his parishioners about the evangelistic potential of Mel Gibson’s 2004 movie, the Passion of the Christ. In the first chapter, Hyde surveys what the Scriptures teach about “Man’s Media.” Here he also helpfully interacts with authors who argue for the use of images, such as Jeffrey J. Meyers. The Reformed confessions are also exposited on this point and Hyde concludes that their message is unanimous: “they forbid all images of God, whether they were intended for worship, education, or artistic expression” (86). In the two other chapters, Hyde makes the positive case for “God’s Media”: the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. He urges Reformed believers to learn contentment with the means of grace that God has appointed.

In Living Color is not long and it’s written at a level which should be accessible to most readers. Speaking personally, I came to this book convinced of its position beforehand. Nevertheless, I do think that Hyde presents the best case against images of Christ that we’ve heard in a long time. This is an excellent book on a neglected subject and I recommend it highly. May it be a tool in God’s hand to create a new status quo!

Book Review of Children at the Lord's Table?

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:07:06 GMT

Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion, Cornelis P. Venema, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009. Hardcover, 199 pages, $25.00 USD.

Paedocommunion is a word that we’re hearing more often these days, mostly because of its connection with many of the figures associated with the Federal Vision movement. A few years back, one of those figures pointed out to me that no one has ever really written a book presenting a solid case against admitting children to the Lord’s Supper. He may have been right then, but I don’t believe he’s right any longer.

Cornelis Venema is well-known as a professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary and a United Reformed minister. In this book, he first outlines the arguments of Tim Gallant and others like him for the practice of paedocommunion. These arguments are primarily from Scripture, but there are also historical considerations.

In the chapters following, Venema considers these arguments. He examines the historical evidence and finds it to be inconclusive at best. He also adds a chapter looking at “Paedocommunion and the Reformed Confessions.” Several years ago, there was a case in the United Reformed Churches dealing with whether the Three Forms of Unity allow the teaching of paedocommunion. The answer was negative. Although Venema does not mention that particular case, he affirms the answer. However, most important of all is the Scriptural evidence. Venema examines the relationship between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper and points out that it is not as straightforward as many have made it out to be. In fact, there is a stronger connection between the Lord’s Supper and the covenant renewal meal in Exodus 24. Venema also gives an entire chapter to the crucial passage of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, concluding that the Biblical way to the Lord’s Table is through public profession of faith.

In the last chapter, the author also considers the relationship between covenant theology and paedocommunion, especially in view of the Federal Vision movement. Given these current issues, this is a helpful discussion. Equally helpful is the appendix dealing with covenant theology and baptism. Venema correctly outlines the promise and obligations of the covenant. Like Klaas Schilder, he distinguishes between two different aspects of the covenant of grace. There’s also a good section on whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional – though I do think that more explicit reference to union with Christ could have sharpened the argument here.

This is an excellent and timely book dealing with an important issue. It would be worthwhile to have it on hand in family and church libraries for when questions arise about paedocommunion. It’s also highly recommended for those who need to have a good understanding of this issue, i.e. pastors and elders.

Schilder and Calvin's Prayer

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:00:49 GMT

I was reading through K. Schilder's Looze Kalk this afternoon and came across an interesting section about a prayer of John Calvin. The prayer follows his commentary on Jeremiah 31:34. Schilder was interacting with J. Ridderbos who had appealed to Calvin's prayer to make a point in discussions regarding the nature of the covenant. Using a book of prayers of Calvin edited by A.G. Barkey Wolf, Calvin's prayer was quoted by Riddberbos as saying (in translation):

We thank you, O almighty God, that you have deemed us worthy, making a covenant with us through your Son, a covenant which aims for our salvation. We prayerfully ask that we may belong to this covenant.

Schilder pointed out that this is not what Calvin actually said. Here's the Latin from the 1563 Geneva edition of Calvin's commentary on Jeremiah:

If we translate the relevant section, it reads:

Grant, almighty God, since you have favoured us with this singular privilege, that in the power of your Son you have cut your covenant which has been ratified for our salvation, that we may be participants of it...

The English translation in the popular Baker edition of Calvin's Commentaries reads like this:

Grant, Almighty God, that as thou hast favored us with so singular a benefit as to make through thy Son a covenant which has been ratified for our salvation, -- O grant, that we may become partakers of it...

The Dutch "translation" provided by Ridderbos was more of a paraphrase and not even a very accurate one. Schilder was right to call Ridderbos on this one. Schilder went further and argued that "of it" (eius) should be understood as referring to "our salvation" rather than the covenant. In so doing, Schilder argues that Calvin distinguishes in this prayer between belonging to the covenant and being a recipient of salvation. Interesting...

In the Unaccommodated Calvin, Richard Muller warns against placing too much trust in the English translations (especially the Battles edition) of the Institutes. Editors and translators sometimes take liberties with the text that reflect more of their personal biases and theological concerns than what Calvin actually said. Apparently the same has to be said for some editions/translations of Calvin's commentaries. With so much available on the Internet, today it's easier than ever to check what a translation says against the original. Careful scholarship demands it. And, truth be told, it is rather fun to boot...

Confessional Subscription -- A Recent Dissertation on an Important Subject

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:34:27 GMT

R.C. (Karlo) Janssen is the minister-elect of the Abbotsford Canadian Reformed Church just down the road from us here in Langley. He and I studied together (one year) at the CanRC seminary in Hamilton. After graduating from Hamilton, he headed across the pond to study at the Theological University in Kampen. He recently defended a doctoral dissertation on the subject of confessional subscription in the Reformed churches since 1816. It's in English and you can find a free download of it here. I haven't read it through, but it certainly looks interesting. If you can read Dutch, you may also want to read this article and this about it.

Canons of Dort Rejection of Errors 1.1

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:27:30 GMT

Over the last couple months, I've posted a couple of items that were a bit critical of other editions of the Three Forms of Unity. Today it's time to be a bit self-critical with the CanRC editions.

I noticed a peculiarity in the Rejection of Errors 1.1. The old 1972 edition said the Synod rejects the error of those who teach "that the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decree of election unto salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's Word."

When we get to the edition adopted in 1983, it says that the Synod rejects the error of those who teach that "The will of God is to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and obedience is the whole and entire decree of election to salvation. Nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's Word."

Notice the difference? "The obedience of faith" has been changed to simple "obedience." What does the original Latin say?

"Qui docent, Voluntatem Dei de servandis credituris et in fide fideique obedientia perseveraturis..."

The Latin clearly has "in the obedience of faith." The Dutch does too. This is a really odd change given that the Canons of Dort are rejecting historical errors. In fact, at this point the Canons are actually quoting Remonstrant writings. You can't make the Synod reject something that it didn't reject nor can you change what the Remonstrants wrote. That's a sort of revisionism. I'm surprised that nobody caught this in 1983. It needs to be fixed.

Book Review: Abraham Kuyper's Our Worship

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:55:44 GMT

Our Worship, Abraham Kuyper (ed. Harry Boonstra), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Paperback, 411 pages, $30.00 USD.

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is not as well-known as he used to be. In years gone by, he and his views were much discussed -- few people were neutral about this giant of a man. For many in our circles, he was the source of a wrong turn in Reformed theology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Regardless, there is no doubt that he was hugely influential as a Dutch pastor, theologian, educator, politician and author. Among his achievements were leadership in the Doleantie of 1886 and holding the office of Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905. He defined what it means to be a prolific writer and this particular book under review appeared in 1911, relatively late in his career.

The book was originally entitled Onze Eeredienst and consisted of a compilation of articles about public worship initially published in the periodical De Heraut. This translation was commissioned by the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship at Calvin College/Seminary in Grand Rapids. It was carried out by a capable team of translators and, for the most part, the translation is smooth and in good English. Harry Boonstra did the editing work and this included pruning about 30% of the original Dutch text. In other words, Our Worship is not a direct or full translation of Onze Eeredienst but a translated abridgement. Boonstra also provided an excellent introduction which places Kuyper’s book in its historical context.

As far as the content is concerned, Kuyper takes us through a Reformed worship service and discusses all the different elements. The book begins with some preliminary considerations about worship, and then proceeds to begin with the benediction, moving through to the salutation. Along the way, Kuyper offers his thoughts on anything and everything. Towards the end of the volume we find chapters dealing with baptism, profession of faith, Lord’s Supper, excommunication & readmission, ordination/installation, and marriage.

Our Worship is interesting from an historical point of view. It is remarkable how much things have changed since the days of Kuyper. For instance, one today can hardly imagine a worship service with 30 children being baptized in one service (236)! The book is also still relevant and helpful for contemporary reflection on our Reformed worship services. As an example, Kuyper gives some thought to the mechanics of corporate prayer – how can we best pray along with the minister? He also discusses the important matter of God’s presence in public worship – is God present in the worship service in a way that he is not elsewhere? Kuyper makes the case that he is (112). In another place, he defends the priority of psalms in Reformed worship (39).

There is a lot to commend this old/new volume. Yet there are a few misgivings. As mentioned above, Kuyper discusses baptism in one of the chapters and there his concept of presumptive regeneration resurfaces. The starting point of Kuyper’s reflections is also problematic. He gives no attention to what the Three Forms of Unity teach on this point in HC LD 35 or BC 7 and 32. Instead, he takes his starting point and guiding principle in the nature of the worship service as an assembly of believers. His perspective is useful in many respects and is not to be discarded, but his prioritizing of this fails to do justice to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority for Reformed worship. The nature of the assembly should not be the starting point for Reformed worship.

Also, since it is a later development in Reformed liturgics, Kuyper does not discuss the covenantal structure of our worship. While he does touch on the covenantal nature of worship (relating as it does to his starting point), this does not bear fruit in the area of how the worship service is to be dialogically organized. Had he been able to make use of those insights, one wonders whether he would still insist on having the votum as the first element in the service – after all, if our worship is covenantal, and God has the first word in the covenant of grace, should he not also have the first word in our worship?

Those points notwithstanding, the publication of this abridgement is a wonderful contribution to the study of Reformed worship. Rounding out the volume are a number of responses. John Bolt’s essay on “All of Life is Worship?” was especially outstanding, dealing with the neo-Kuyperian concept that everything we do is worship. The Calvin Institute of Christian Worship is to be commended for the publication of Our Worship. It’s an engaging read that brings us into contact with an important figure from our heritage.

Louis Berkhof is Scholastic?

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:36:40 GMT

While I was still in university, a retired minister was downsizing and needed to get rid of a lot of his books. Word reached Edmonton and before long I was the thankful owner of a bunch of new (to me) books. Among them was Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. I read it almost right away and learned a lot from it. When I arrived in Hamilton, Berkhof was the textbook for our dogmatics (a.k.a. systematic theology) courses. As we proceeded through the different topics, our professor would periodically make some critical notes here and there about Berkhof.

I don’t particularly recall our dogmatics professor alleging that Berkhof was “scholastic.” Maybe he did and I just don’t remember. But I can recall many people in the years since referring to Berkhof as “scholastic,” “too scholastic,” or at least having scholastic tendencies. Of course, this was all meant in a negative way. “Scholastic” is generally a smear word in our circles. I thought of all this as I came across this paragraph the other day from Richard Muller’s After Calvin:

In addition, the pejorative use of the terms “scholastic” and “scholasticism” reflects the attempt of several generations of contemporary theologians to rid themselves of the shackles (real or imagined) of their own “scholastic” tradition as mediated by older manuals of doctrine such as Charles Hodge’s or Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and, at times, a failure to distinguish between this nineteenth- and early twentieth-century manifestation of the orthodox and scholastic Reformed theology and the rather different theology of the seventeenth century or, indeed, between a theologically motivated caricature of “dry scholasticism” or “rigid,” “dead orthodoxy” and the late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century mind that found the scholastic method necessary and congenial to its academic and disputative needs. The antagonism to “decretal theology” likewise draws on a contemporary distaste for recent tradition and on the assumption of the accuracy of the nineteenth-century “central dogma” theory. Similar modern worries over the detrimental effects of scholasticism, the problematic character of decretal theology, or the inherent legalism of covenant theology do not belong to legitimate historiography – rather, they appear in theologized examinations of the past written in support of contemporary theories. Such essays tell their readers much more about the biases of their writers than about the theology of their supposed historical subject. And, of course, biased argumentation in the field of systematic or dogmatic theology that fails to do justice to historical sources will ultimately call into question the results of theological inquiry as well. (93-94)

There’s a lot to chew on there, but getting back to Louis Berkhof, it is simply not correct to identify him as scholastic in any sense. His method is not scholastic at all! There is substantial methodological difference between Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and the Leiden Synopsis, or Turretin’s Institutes or a Marck’s Christianae Theologiae, or Cloppenburg’s Exercitationes, just to name a few examples.   Yes, he shares content with the Protestant orthodox of the sixteenth- and seventeenth centuries, but so do Van Genderen and Velema, Schilder, Bavinck, and any other confessionally Reformed theologian of our day.

Moreover, if the problem is with Berkhof’s distinctions, then we need to recognize that the making of distinctions is essential for Christian theology in any age. As a basic example, we need to distinguish between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Distinctions are not scholastic in themselves. Everybody uses them in theology. The problem is that certain people don’t appreciate Berkhof’s distinctions. That’s fine and I don’t appreciate every single one he uses either. However, then don’t say that he’s scholastic just because he uses some distinctions that you don’t find persuasive. Distinctions don’t make a theologian scholastic. As to what does make a theologian scholastic, you’ll have to look back at this post.

All of this is also not to say that Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology is the be all and end all of theology textbooks. Yet there is a good reason why it has been a standard text for so many years: it is a good overview of confessionally Reformed theology. Perhaps something better will come along and supplant it, in fact I hope so and I think we need a more contemporary work. I thought initially that maybe Van Genderen and Velema’s Concise Reformed Dogmatics might, but now I rather doubt it. Maybe this will?   It is remarkable (and sad) that my own CanRC tradition has never produced a single dogmatics text.

Okay, I think I’m done ranting about scholasticism for a while. I’m declaring a moratorium on this subject for at least two months. Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

Premises for Reappraisal

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:16:28 GMT

In chapter 4 of After Calvin, Muller gives what I think is the most concise summary of his program for the reassessment of Protestant scholasticism. He provides eleven “premises of reappraisal”:

1.    The question of continuity and discontinuity between Reformation and orthodoxy must be set against the background of an examination of continuities and discontinuities running through the history of thought from the Middle Ages into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
2.    “Scholasticism” and “Aristotelianism” must not be understood as static or as purely medieval phenomena, as if neither underwent a historical development that extended through the sixteenth into the seventeenth century.
3.    Descriptions of “scholasticism” must consider the meaning of the term as found both in scholarly studies of the Christian tradition prior to the Reformation and in the writings of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Protestant theologians.
4.    Scholasticism and rationalism also must be clearly distinguished – on historical, philosophical, and theological grounds.
5.    Method and content need to be distinguished, albeit not utterly separated.
6.    Continuities and discontinuities in the interpretive or exegetical tradition must be given at least equal weight with developments in scholastic method and philosophical usage.
7.    Individual Reformation thinkers or treatises ought not to be made a measure either of the whole Reformation era or of the Reformed character of individual orthodox era thinkers or treatises.
8.    The diversity of post-Reformation theology must be examined with a view toward relativizing standard generalizations about the relationships between the Reformation and post-Reformation orthodoxy, scholasticism and humanism, pietism and rationalism.
9.    Nineteenth- and twentieth-century theological assumptions must not be allowed to impinge on or become the basis for an assessment of the thought of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly inasmuch as such assumptions have frequently become imbedded in older theological examinations of the Reformation and orthodoxy and have often transformed nominally historical studies into justifications of modern theological views.
10.    The various forms of the “central dogma” theory, both those that indicate a continuity between Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy and those that indicate a disjunction, must be set aside.
11.    Issues of form, structure, and content of sets of loci communes, disputationes, institutiones, “bodies of doctrine,” or what may loosely be called “theological systems” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, ought not invariably to be explained dogmatically as the results of use of doctrinal motifs or as responses to purported “tensions” in theology.

Protestant Orthodoxy and the Covenant

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:18:21 GMT

I’ve been reading Richard Muller’s After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition and also his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. This is very interesting material, especially as Muller deconstructs the Calvin vs. the Calvinists historiography. The first chapter in After Calvin deals with “Approaches to Post-Reformation Protestantism.” He writes about the argument that many have made that there are “multiple and rather divergent Reformed covenant traditions.” Not so, says Muller:

The core of the argument for distinct Reformed covenant traditions, indeed, in the case of J. Wayne Baker’s version of the argument, two nearly inimical traditions, rests on the presence of unilateral and bilateral definitions of the covenant in the Reformed tradition and the claim of these writers that the definitions are mutually exclusive and held by different thinkers, to the point that the unilateral definition belongs to a more “predestinarian” approach and the bilateral definition to an approach that verges on synergism in its emphasis on human responsibility. The problems with the theory are many: in the first place, many Reformed writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries employ both definitions, the unilateral and the bilateral, in their identification of different aspects or stages in the covenant relationship between God and humanity. In the second place, all of the writers, whether Bullinger and Calvin in the sixteenth century or Perkins and Cocceius in the seventeenth century, are monergistic in their soteriology and intent on defining covenant within the boundaries of the confessional tradition. There is, in other words, one variegated Reformed tradition in which there are several trajectories of thought. Ultimately, whatever differences may be identified between the individual formulations of various theologians, all stood within the Reformed confessional tradition and, more to the point of the present discussion, all stood within the pattern of developing Reformed orthodoxy. It is only by breaking apart the actual tradition, as defined by its own confessions and by labeling one side of the debate as “orthodox” and the other as an opposition to “rigid orthodoxy,” that the older scholarship has managed to produce its portrait of a rigidly monolithic or monochromatic orthodoxy. (9)

Muller is arguing that there was more unity than diversity on questions regarding the covenant in the post-Reformation period. The differences that did exist were well within the confines of “the confessional tradition.” Of course, then the issue needs to be raised: how do we define “the confessional tradition” in this period? According to Muller, “the great confessions that define the shape and bounds of Protestant orthodoxy” are the Gallican (French) Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Second Helvetic Confession (33).