This is the blog of Jack Kilcrease and the home of all new posts on theological topics.
Speaking on the Authority of Scripture in Wittenberg
I am excited to be speaking at the North European Luther Academy‘s 2023 Annual Theological Symposium in Wittenberg, Germany. This year’s symposium topic will be “Inspiration, Authority, and Leadership.” I will be speaking on the “The Authority of Scripture and Tradition in Light of the Lutheran Confessional Paradigm” and “The Doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy in Confessional Lutheran Perspective.” Other speakers include Daniel Johansson, Knut Alfsvåg, Rune Imberg, and Fredrik Sidenvall. If you can make it, I’d love to connect!
The Image of God and Freedom
The text of Genesis 1, quite specifically connects existing as God’s image-bearers with the dominion humans possess in creation. After affirming his intention to make humans in his image, God addresses both the man and woman saying: “. . . have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Because God created humans in his image they share in God’s dominion over the primal creation and in his complete freedom. This freedom exists in two horizons: coram Deo (before the face of God) and coram mundo (before the face of the world).
Coram Deo, although primal humans are free from the law in the manner that Christians would later be free from the law in Christ, such freedom does not mean arbitrary or destructive lawlessness. As the Formula of Concord correctly asserts, the law is God’s eternal will for his creation (lex aeterna) both before and after the Fall. Nevertheless, in the state of integrity, God made human beings in the divine image. Therefore, human creatures wholly desired to perform the law. The law was not contrary to their desires and therefore they did not need to place their desires in subordination to the law since their wills exactly mirrored God’s law. Rules are only positive demands when they are not followed or if we do not desire to follow them. If my expectation is for my children to clean their room, and they do it habitually on their own, then there is no reason to make it a family rule that children must clean their rooms each week. Moreover, when children spontaneously clean their rooms, they are simply doing what they desire and are not subjecting their will to any higher authority than what they naturally desire. In this scenario, they would clean their rooms out of perfect freedom, because in cleaning they would simply be doing what they wanted to do without any external authority telling them they must or coercing them to do so.
Because humans share in God’s dominion and are free from the condemnation of the law in the primal state, they also possess a share in God’s rest as exemplified by the primal Sabbath. Freedom from the law and its condemnation means rest from its demands relentlessly pressing down on humanity and demanding a response. In the primal week, much as in the work of Christ, work led to rest and rest enabled work. Regarding the primal week, God’s work in creation actualized the seventh day of rest. Because God completed his works he could rest and bid his people enter into that rest. Although a literal day in the primal week, the Sabbath as described by Genesis also has a typological meaning as the text itself indicates. Genesis 2 gives the Sabbath has no boundaries since the language of evening and morning is intentionally missing, unlike with the other days. Hence, the Sabbath becomes emblematic of the rest that the people of God enter into. Christians enter this rest when they receive by grace all that God has given them (Heb. 4), namely, the whole of creation along with God’s own self-donating presence with them. This is true in the old creation within the narrative of the seven days. However, it is also true in the new creation when Christ’s work gives rest to the conscience of Christians suffering under sin and the condemnation of the law: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
Continue reading “The Image of God and Freedom”New Institute of Lutheran Theology Partnership
As of fall 2023, ILT’s undergraduate Christ College will be partnering with Mount Carmel Ministries to provide a Christian residential campus experience. ILT shares that “this partnership means that Christ College students can live at Mount Carmel while earning a degree from Christ College. They will live among a community of Christian students in which they will be supported in their Christian faith.” Mount Carmel has its origins Scandinavian Lutheranism and the Lutheran Bible Institute founded in 1919. In keeping with the Reformation emphasis on Christ Alone, Mount Carmel Ministries emphasizes “Jesus Only.”
Image from “Undergrad Partnership with Mount Carmel Ministries,” Institute of Lutheran Theology, 10 March 2023, https://ilt.edu/undergrad-partnership-with-mcm/?fbclid=IwAR0B3TXRhinZ_3DC8A1lYz1L36Cbit3d6WKc1R_nLSvlh5pfm1NZ5RiQ6Ug.
The God of the Gospel: Affirmation and Negation in Divine Hiddenness
One response to the mythological metaphysics of modernity has been calls to return to something like Aquinas or Pseudo-Dionysius’s analogical or mystical view of God. Although both authors avoid a mythological view of God by removing him from the system of being, calls to return to mysticism or analogy misconceive the problem. Sadly, those who call for such a return often view idolatry primarily as a confusion of creature and creator, rather than as an extension of the problem of self-justification. Humanity only generates idols because self-justifying humans need a God who they can control with their good works or kill off with their denial.
Those who idealize Aquinas’s or Pseudo-Dionysius’s approach to the problem of idolatry typically function within a legalist trajectory. These legalists employ the strategy of pressing the claims of divine transcendence all the harder in order to keep humans from confusing the creation with the creator. Within Protestantism, this can also be observed in Zwingli and Calvin’s wrongheaded campaigns against church artwork and at times music. Pressing the claims of transcendence all the more strongly does not cure human self-justification, it simply hardens it. This is,, of course not to say that showing a concern for divine transcendence, or creator/creature distinction are mistaken. Indeed, univocity and the immanentization of the divine create their own problems with self-justification and idolatry. The key is that any biblically faithful and intellectually credible view of God must overcome antinomian and legalistic conceptions of God by making the law subordinate and penultimate to the gospel.
In order to understand the biblical teaching concerning God from the perspective of the gospel, we turn to Luther as our guide. As we observed in an earlier section, both the pre-modern Greek and Latin theological traditions relied on a dialectic of “negation” (apophatic theology or the via negativa) and affirmation (kataphatic theology or the via positiva). Lowell Green has noted that Luther’s doctrine of God also relies on a form of affirmation and negation, albeit a radically different one. Luther’s affirmation is God hidden (negation) and God revealed (affirmation). As we will also see, one could also add God’s appearance under the law as negation, and gospel as affirmation.
Continue reading “The God of the Gospel: Affirmation and Negation in Divine Hiddenness”Univocity and Big Problems
In the area of biblical scholarship, many modern Liberals and Fundamentalists see a zero-sum game between the realities of inspiration and historical embeddedness of the biblical texts. On the one hand, Liberals insist that if they can find a human or historically contextual aspect to the text, it must not have come by supernatural revelation. This is because metaphysical univocalism [the belief that words describing God and creatures mean the same thing] implies that there is a zero-sum game between temporal and divine causes. As a result, the assumption is that the human and contextual excludes the divine. On the other hand, Fundamentalists sometimes speak as if they exclude all historical and contextual factors in the composition of the text and read the writings a historically. Again, since the causal agency of the human and divine constitute a zero-sum game within a univocal framework, for divine revelation to take place the divine must replace the agency of the human and temporal.
Indeed, univocal metaphysics are major (though not the sole) source of modernity’s imagined strife between science and religion. In the pre-modern view of God, naturalistic causes and explanations and divine ones did not conflict since there was no zero-sum game between divine and creaturely agency. With univocal metaphysics, naturalistic explanations of phenomenon invariably crowd out divine ones. One can see attempts by early theistic scientists like Isaac Newton making what has often been termed “God of the gaps” arguments in order to find a place for God in a causal order that could increasingly be explained naturalistically. In a number of cases, when there was a causal gap in his theory Newton would attribute the phenomenon to God. Of course, when the naturalistic cause behind the phenomenon was discovered, then God and his causal role were simply pushed back. As things stand in contemporary science, most of the universe can be explained naturalistically. Hence, the chief arguments of the “New Atheist” movement rest on the basis of the onto-theology and univocal metaphysics that they have unconsciously absorbed from modernity. They believe that since science can explain most temporal causes without reference to an eternal cause, like Pierre-Simon Laplace, they have “no need” for the God hypothesis.
Nevertheless, from the perspective of the Bible and pre-modern theism, this is an absurd argument. To use a theater analogy, the claim that the New Atheists are making is that since there is no character in Hamlet named “William Shakespeare,” then William Shakespeare has no causal agency in the play and therefore does not exist. As should be clear, such a claim would completely misconstrue William Shakespeare’s ontological status and causal agency. Moreover, even if one could give a description of the action in the play without any need to make reference to William Shakespeare, such a paradigm of understanding still could not explain why there was a play in the first place or why it was intelligible.
Continue reading “Univocity and Big Problems”