# ATTN: I'm Smarter than Berkof, ad infinitum



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2006)

*ATTN: I\'m Smarter than Berkof, ad infinitum*



> At times, I've felt that my polemics against semi-marcionitism in sacramental theology and hermeneutics finds no actual targets. And then I read something like this. In his book on hermeneutics, Louis Berkhof characterizes the difference between type and antitype: "The one represents truth on a lower, the other, the same truth on a higher stage. To pass from the type to the antitype is to ascend from that in which the carnal predominates to that which is purely spiritual, from the external to the internal, from the present to the future, from the earthly to the heavenly." To which I say, WHOA! Has Berkhof heard of the incarnation?
> 
> Then he adds, "Rome loses sight of this when it finds the antitype of the Old Testament sacrifices, in the mass; of the priesthood, in the apostolic succession of priests and bishops; and of the high priest, in the pope." I don't agree with the specific typologies he mentions, but they are not wrong because they move from OT "carnal" to NT "carnal" realities; the Westminster Form of Church Government does that when it appeals to the example of priests and Levites to demonstrate that ministers should read the Word in public worship.
> 
> ...



Is this guy for real?

[Edited on 8-10-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2006)

Apparently you are a Marcionite if you use dichotomies (such as the so-yesterday Law/Gospel distinction, the one Paul uses in God's Word, you know?):



> Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (Rom 3:27)
> 
> For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Rom 3:28)
> 
> ...



Paul was being a little too rationalistic (even though it wasn't invented yet) and Marcionistic in these verses, don't you think? Systematic, too. Shame.

[Edited on 8-10-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 10, 2006)

Mr Leithart gets the Ignoramus Patri award for mulitple accounts of stupidity


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2006)

Is he still ordained by a real denomination (i.e. not the CREC)?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 10, 2006)

Do not call Leithart names. If you wish to interact with his arguments, fine. But, please keep to the point brothers.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 10, 2006)

Yes folks, it took all of 47 minutes for a blog repsonse to appear to this thread.


----------



## Scott (Aug 10, 2006)

Not sure if there is anything wrong with Leithart's comments. If Christ is the antitype of many OT types, then it is not correct for Berkhof to suggest that antitypes are purely spiritual. Leithart's reference to the incarnation seems solid. The spiritual second person of the Trinity actually taking on physical form. Seems to be the opposite of what Berkhof is saying (at least from the excerpt above).


----------



## DTK (Aug 10, 2006)

> *Leithart* At times, I've felt that my polemics against semi-marcionitism in sacramental theology and hermeneutics finds no actual targets. And then I read something like this. In his book on hermeneutics, Louis Berkhof characterizes the difference between type and antitype: "The one represents truth on a lower, the other, the same truth on a higher stage. To pass from the type to the antitype is to ascend from that in which the carnal predominates to that which is purely spiritual, from the external to the internal, from the present to the future, from the earthly to the heavenly." To which I say, WHOA! Has Berkhof heard of the incarnation?
> 
> Then he adds, "Rome loses sight of this when it finds the antitype of the Old Testament sacrifices, in the mass; of the priesthood, in the apostolic succession of priests and bishops; and of the high priest, in the pope." I don't agree with the specific typologies he mentions, but they are not wrong because they move from OT "carnal" to NT "carnal" realities; the Westminster Form of Church Government does that when it appeals to the example of priests and Levites to demonstrate that ministers should read the Word in public worship.
> 
> ...


I think the real problem with Leithart's comment here is the overt tendency to read Berkhof in the worst possible light. Leithart "poisons the well" for Berkhof here with reference to the incarnation of our Lord, and then to insinuate that Berkhof's conclusion in this discussion is rather short-sighted with respect to implications that one might be predisposed to draw from it. Berkhof was not addressing the issue of the incarnation, and he should not be treated as though his language here speaks in ignorance of that reality. I would hasten to say that our master from the past has heard of the incarnation. To be sure, he gave a very reverent, godly, careful, orthodox, theological and biblical treatment of it in his _Systematic Theology_, pp. 333-336. What purpose is there in asking such a question of one "who being dead still speaks" to the contrary? After all, hasn't Mr. Leithart complained of late that people have read him in the worst possible light? Could it be that this is more of a comment about himself rather than Berkhof?

The only reason here I can think of someone calling Berkhof's language into question is for the purpose of a particular agenda. Because, plain and simple, Berkhof was no a semi-marcionite, and anyone familiar with his reverent treatment of the incarnation, as referenced above, knows that. Berkhof was addressing an hermeneutic, not a biblical doctrine.

But brethren, why not seek to read Berkhof's language here in the best possible light? Would we be disposed to read our Lord's words in the worst possible light when He sought to direct men's minds from earthly realities to heavenly realities? What are we to make of our Lord's words when He Himself said?...


> John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"


Would we stop here with our Lord's language, and castigate Him for desiring to point from "truth on a lower" level to "the same truth on a higher stage?" Would we question the propriety of our Lord's language because he desired men "to ascend from that in which the carnal predominates to that which is purely spiritual, from the external to the internal, from the present to the future, from the earthly to the heavenly?" Would we suggest that our Lord hasn't heard of his own incarnation? No, we would simply read the next verse where our Lord affirmed that very reality...


> John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven."


Moreover, would we read our Lord's clear, three-fold emphasis here on the heavenly reality of his nature and conclude he merely gave lip-service to his own incarnation in passing? No, of course we wouldn't. We would seek to read our Lord's language in the most truthful light!

Could it be, as he readily confessed, that he was experiencing so much difficulty in finding any "actual targets" for his his semi-marcionite polemic "in sacramental theology and hermeneutics" that Mr. Leithart finally created one with Berkhof, and zeroed in on him by construing his language in the worst light? I think so, and would encourage Mr. Leithart to seek to read Berkhof in the best and most truthful light, rather than placing him in his crosshairs.

After all, I doubt Mr. Leithart would appreciate those who disagree with him saying, "Leithart's version of typology is more conducive to Romanist than Reformed theology. But the fact that Federal Visionists operate with something like Romanist assumptions is one of the deep sources for the schizophrenia of Federal Visionists' heremeneutics and theology."...Or then, maybe he would. It's difficult to say.

DTK

[Edited on 8-11-2006 by DTK]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2006)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 11, 2006)

Is it me or does FV have a grudge against classical reformed theology? It appears that they do not like CRT and want to 'reform' it. 

Has any Federal Visionist written up a systematic theology so we know exactly where they stand??? 

I find the whole thing frustrating. 

(Dr. Clark this does not mean I have not taken your advice to study the confessions which is something I need to become more studious of-  )

Blade


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Not sure if there is anything wrong with Leithart's comments. If Christ is the antitype of many OT types, then it is not correct for Berkhof to suggest that antitypes are purely spiritual. Leithart's reference to the incarnation seems solid. The spiritual second person of the Trinity actually taking on physical form. Seems to be the opposite of what Berkhof is saying (at least from the excerpt above).



I will side with Berkhof against Leithart here. Hebrews makes it clear that the antitype is to be found in "heavenly" fulfilment. The apostle also speaks of the law of a "carnal" commandment. Hence the carnal/spiritual distinction stands; although Pauline language of the two ages might serve better.

As for the form of church government, it does not speak of eschatological type/antitype when referring to the priest dispensing the Word, but continuity of a moral principle. The same Standards clearly speak of the typical ordinances of the ceremonial law being abrogated by their fulfilment in Christ (WCF 19:3).


----------



## Scott (Aug 11, 2006)

Matthew: If Christ is an anti-type, and Christ has a physical dimension (which comes with the incarnation), then it is not proper to suggest that an anti-type is "purely spiritual." "Heavenly" does not necessarily mean incorporeal. The incarnate Christ is physically present in heaven and he can properly be called heavenly. 

BTW, in relation to other posts, I am not suggesting that Berkhof was a semi-marcionite and am not agreeing with Leithart if that is what he is saying. Berkhof is good. My comments are limited to whether type vs antitype means, in part, physical vs incorporeal.

[Edited on 8-11-2006 by Scott]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 11, 2006)

Yes, it does mean that they don't like CRT, they evidently don't know CRT and don't care to know. If they actually read it they would find precious little support therein for their revisions.

That's why they tend to support the Calvin v the Calvinists reading of the history of Reformed theology despite the fact that, in the academic literature, almost no one is defending the Miller-Armstrong-Kendall (et al) approach any longer. It's quite difficult to do in the face of Muller's massive research. It amazes me that, for such an apparently literate group -- is there any thing that has flowed from Tom Wright's keyboard that they have not memorized? -- they seem quite ignorant of what some have called the "Muller school" of historical theology. It's even more amazing since they claim to want to be Reformed. 

On other discussion boards I've even given them reading lists. I guess Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have taken up all their spare time.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Is it me or does FV have a grudge against classical reformed theology? It appears that they do not like CRT and want to 'reform' it.
> 
> Has any Federal Visionist written up a systematic theology so we know exactly where they stand???
> ...


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Matthew: If Christ is an anti-type, and Christ has a physical dimension (which comes with the incarnation), then it is not proper to suggest that an anti-type is "purely spiritual." "Heavenly" does not necessarily mean incorporeal. The incarnate Christ is physically present in heaven and he can properly be called heavenly.



The apostle makes it clear in 1 Cor. 15, that spiritual and heavenly are related, and that neither are antithetical to somatic experience. The point, though, is that the antitype belongs to the "age to come," and by His coming has brought an end (telos) to the age that was, so that believers now live at the end of the ages (or world) awaiting for the consummation in the world to come.

Leithart is trying to forge a fulfilment/continuity hermeneutic in terms of this world. The question of soma or corpora is irrelevant. The proper question is, WHERE does the Lord fulfil these types? And the answer is an eschatological one, in heavenly places. Else He would be sitting upon a throne in Jerusalem, not at the right hand of God.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Yes, it does mean that they don't like CRT, they evidently don't know CRT and don't care to know. If they actually read it they would find precious little support therein for their revisions.
> 
> That's why they tend to support the Calvin v the Calvinists reading of the history of Reformed theology despite the fact that, in the academic literature, almost no one is defending the *Miller-Armstrong-Kendall (et al) approach* any longer. It's quite difficult to do in the face of Muller's massive research. It amazes me that, for such an apparently literate group -- is there any thing that has flowed from Tom Wright's keyboard that they have not memorized? -- they seem quite ignorant of what some have called the *"Muller school" of historical theology*. It's even more amazing since they claim to want to be Reformed.
> ...



Dr. Clark could you please explain what I have bolded in your quote, I have not heard of these before.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 12, 2006)

Is Allister McGrath being corrupted by these guys? He seems to have some revisionistic views on Calvin in his biography of Calvin, also some Calvin vs. Calvinist stuff. Say it isn't so!


----------

