Friday, December 9, 2011

Introduction to Pannenberg

"The Apostles' Creed" by W. Pannenberg In this book, one is given an overview of Wolfhart Pannenbergs overall thought process, his thinking concerning theology and its task as well as his approach to the task of Apologetics. It is a great and superb book, that is considerably lighter in style than “Jesus – God and Man”, but no less weighty in substance. I highly recommend the book. Article by article Wolfhart goes through the Creed explaining its history in the church, and philosophical problems and answers regarding each proposition. He admonishes the pastors and theologians to teach this creed, to make it make sense for the lay person. It is their job as teachers of the church. And here he is quite right. I found the first few chapters of this book to be incredibly insightful, as he discusses the decline in belief in God in the west through the propositions of Fichte, Feuerbach and Freud. And how ultimately, this atheism is unsustainable. Equally intriguing is his assault on the idea of Faith as being a personal decision, a “leap of Faith” that puts its trust in no facts whatsoever. This thought is probably more dangerous to Christianity today than any single other heresy. A Faith that has no foundation is no faith at all, and invites one to treat all religions the same, basically as fictions meant to make you feel better about yourself. He argues quite effectively that the logical line to the Christian faith, is first belief in God and then in Jesus, that the two are interrelated and are not easily separated is an intriguing one. In doing apologetics I like to start and end with the historical resurrection, something that W.P. does extremely well defending, and argue that this validates Christ’s claims not only to be God, but also about God. This does work, but at other times I have found some resistant to such argumentation, and W.P. has made me at least reexamine some of my underlying thoughts on all that. It may be a longer row to hoe to go his way, but perhaps needed, at least in some cases. The only real objection I have to this book, is that W.P. makes no sense whatsoever when speaking about the Virgin Birth. He is all over the map on that one, denying it, and yet trying to affirm it at the same time. I am not quite sure what his ultimate hang up is with that. In this he concedes way to readily to liberal scholarship and presuppositions. His whole argumentation seems to stand and fall though with Markan Priority, which is something I myself have never been fully convinced of. Call me traditional, or Lutheran, but Matthew was first, and Markan Priority is a Calvinist Camel with its nose in the tent.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm many years removed from my Dutch Calvinist roots and was curious about the link between the Markan Priority and the Calvinist Camel. From some quick reading this Markan Priority gained momentum in the late 1800s. Did this arise out of the "liberalism" and "skepticism" toward Scripture from the so-called scholars at the time? Just curious, pardon my ignorance on the subject.

You concluded one comment recently by noting that "I mean I find it hard to believe, but there are actually Lutherans out there that don’t drink beer, or wine, they are free in this regard." Unfortunately a recent elevated level of uric acid meant I had to be "free in this regard," just not voluntarily! Root beer at Oktoberfest is about as bad as grape juice at ... well, okay, not quite as sacrilegious!

-- Dennis

Bror Erickson said...

Dennis,
I view Calvin as the Father of Liberalism. Chiefly because in denying the miraculous nature of the sacraments, he opened the scripture to be criticized by human reason alone. But Markan Priority then serves the purposes of not only undermining the virgin birth, classical liberalism, but also undermining the efficacy of the sacraments. More on that later, but I was tipped off to it in Chemnitz, "on the Lord's Supper" and in a conversation I had with the late Michael Spencer of Imonk, who while arguing with him for the efficacy of the Lord's Supper, refused to accept one of my points based on the fact that he believed Mark to be the first gospel. I honestly can't remember the conversation in detail, I wish I could. Maybe I'll search the archives there soon, and dig it up.

Brigitte said...

In relation to this you might enjoy a post I just made about Rev. Henry Beecher, the "Most Famous Man in America." His father was the Puritan/Calvinist preacher Lyman Beecher, and his sister was Harriet Beecher Stowe of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

The swing from Calvinism to Liberalism seems to me also a reaction to the bleak and hopeless aspects of Calvinist doctrine.

http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com/2011/12/most-famous-man-in-america-2.html

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Pastor Erickson, for your response. It was difficult at one time, perhaps because of the catechism of my youth, to understand how Calvin opened the doors to so much. Your answer summarizes it succinctly on the efficacy of the sacraments. Your comment on the late Michael Spencer and his view on Mark is interesting. He once said, if he would ever leave the "baptist" fold, that a type of Presyterian church might appeal to him (I believe he was a guest pastor at one). I asked him in his comments why a liberal one instead of a conservative one? He cited the ordination of women and other factors. So he had a certain bent in some ways. And yet, over time, he seemed to express a real appreciation for Luther and the Lutheran church. His site was never the same once his voice was gone. Anyway, thanks again for commenting on the Markan Priority. I look forward to any added comments on this in the future.

-- Dennis

Bror Erickson said...

Yes there were a few things Spencer was not willing to even discuss, not honestly, Women's ordination was one, the efficacy of the sacraments another.