Theology

We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Ancient Christian Doctrine)

by

IVP Academic 2010

Hardcover, 368 pp.

We have previously reviewed the first four volumes of IVP’s Ancient Christian Doctrine series (see the reviews here). This series is a commentary on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed drawn from the writings of the patristic period of church history (AD 95-750).

Volume 5 concludes the series by commenting on the final portion of the creed: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church…and the life of the world to come. Amen.” The series editors perhaps took a risk by assigning this volume to Roman Catholic Angelo Di Berardino, but Di Berardino is a responsible contributor who does nothing to slant things toward a view of Roman exclusivity. Focusing on the doctrinal pillars of the church and end times, this is probably the volume that fundamentalists will have the most difficulties with, but also the one that they most need to consider.

Before addressing areas of contention, it should be pointed out that there is much to encourage fundamentalists in this volume. The observant reader will notice that each of the four marks of the church—one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—have a unifying characteristic. Doctrinal orthodoxy is the pillar of unity (p. 61). Doctrinal truth and fighting against error mark the holy church (p. 69-70). The church is catholic (or universal) because it teaches right doctrine and loves truth above any man or philosophy (p. 74, 76). The tradition of the apostles is only found in Scriptural proof (p. 80). Speaking a bit anachronistically, the right preaching of the Word is the mark of the church that unites all others.read more

Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging with Early and Medieval Theologians

by

IVP Academic 2010

Paperback, 398 pp.

It has often been said that “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” This is not just a warning for political, educational or social leaders. It is a warning for the church as well. If there is anything that recent theological controversies have shown us, it is that knowing the history of doctrinal development—and specifically orthodox theological development—is key to understanding where we are and why we are here (rather than somewhere else), when it comes to the church’s articulation of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. Time and time again, theological controversy drives the church back to its history—especially to the first few hundred years after Christ. And it is history that will help today’s church rediscover the oft-repeated, doctrinal controversies that shaped orthodox doctrine and learn how those who have gone before us responded with Scripture and wisdom.

With this view in mind Bradley Green has brought together eight contemporary scholars to create Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging with Early and Medieval Theologians. This book covers eight early theologians from Irenaeus to Thomas Aquinas. The impetus for this book is the belief that the past has something to say to and to teach the present. Theology is not hammered out in a vacuum nor does each generation reinvent the theological wheel (though some may try).

Green proposes two reasons for studying theologians of the past. First, studying past theologians helps us to see the logic of their doctrinal development and why they felt certain doctrinal distinctions were important to the faithful defense of the gospel. Second, in studying the “theologizing” of these past men, we allow them to teach us how to theologize. We do not merely stand on the shoulders of the past in terms of the doctrinal content we believe, but also in the logic and rationale used to form and shape that timeless content.read more

“you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a man carries his son, in all the way that you went until you came to this place.” (Deut. 1:31)

Richard Dawkins, the most prominent apologist of atheism in the world today has said,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins isn’t the first to say such things about God, just the most adamant. He is above all a propagandist, with a deep-seated antipathy to the Christian faith. For a Christian—even the most brilliant one—to reason with Dawkins on these points would be like two generals trying to parley before a battle, when one of them has dedicated his life to destroying the other.

As a former atheist recently said to me, “I read Dawkins’s God Delusion, and concluded that if arguments so weak, so circular, given by a man who obviously has a serious problem with God—if this is the best atheism has to offer, then God must really exist.” She later became a Christian. She admits though, that she still has her problems with the Old Testament. So do many Christians. At times they can be nearly as critical of God as Dawkins is.

After all, isn’t the God of the Old Testament the same one Who:read more

• Destroyed the earth with a flood?
• Called for the death of the first born of Egypt?
• Called for the extermination of some of His own people?
• Called for the extermination of all the Canaanites?
• Let David off scot-free after he planned the death of a man then took the man’s wife into his harem?