For Christmas my mom and dad gave me some great books; in particular, some books that will be helpful for my New Testament Theology class in the Spring:
1. The Pauline Eschatology (Vos)
2. Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul (Carson, ed.)
3. Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Ridderbos)
4. Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (Schreiner)
5. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Hawthorne, ed.)
My sister (who consistently surprises me with her sharp instincts) asked, 'Why so many books about Paul? Where are the books about Jesus?'
It's a fair question with a pretty easy answer. The Christian faith is a book-based religion, like Islam, but there is an important difference. Islam teaches that Muhammad was only a secretary for the archangel Michael (who was speaking for God). Muhammad had no creative input in the writing of Koran whatsoever. It was mere dictation--he heard the words and he wrote them down. Christianity is different. God the Holy Spirit caused inspired thoughts to 'rise up' in the minds of the authors of scripture. Just like many other paradoxes (not contradictions) in Christianity, these Words of the Bible are fully contrived by men and at the same time fully contrived by God. One helpful analogy is the dual nature of Christ. Christ was fully man and fully God. Scripture is the same.
Therefore, what we're looking for in discerning the meaning of Scripture is authorial intent--we want to know what Paul was thinking. He wrote those letters (half the New Testament) to other believers with the intention of those believers understanding his words. So, in the words of Tom Schreiner, our task in Pauline theology is to get inside Paul's mind, understand what he meant with those words, and explain those thoughts in our contemporary context.
To understand what God would have us understand from the text, we must understand what Paul was thinking when he wrote the text. The two are the same. And unfortunately, that task is much easier said than done. Paul was a First Century Jew. I'm a 21st C. South Carolinian. Our contexts bear little analogy. That's why the study of Paul's thought-life and worldview is so important.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
SEMINARY STUDENTS AND THE LOCAL CHURCH
One issue our elders at Sojourn have been dealing with since the beginning of the church (2000) is the role of seminary students in our membership. There have been several exceptions, but by-in-large the elders haven't been impressed by the involvement of our SBTS'ers. We've begun including a section in our membership classes that's addressed only to the seminarians called, "Shepherding Seminary Students". The following is a more filled-in outline of my comments to them--a sort of hodgepodge of ideas based almost completely on my reflections from time spent at CHBC.
To begin, the Lord in His infinite kindness has used Southern Seminary for Sojourn's good. Four of our six elders are graduates of SBTS and probably around 50-65% of our members serving actively and consistently in the church (above and beyond regular weekly attendance) are seminarians. We've had seminary professors come and speak at our Theology Breakfast (Wellum, Ware, Whitney, Seifrid, Allison) and preach on Sundays. So what we're not saying is that we dislike the seminary or think it's doing more harm than good.
However, there are some potential pitfalls when one begins a seminary education.
1. What we have seen oftentimes is the supposed idea that a Christian's time in seminary is sort of its own 'dispensation'. What would be required from a regular lay-member isn't required from the seminary student because he's working towards future ministry and can't be hampered by present ministry. This kind of thinking creates a two-tier membership, an idea which is completely foreign to the New Testament's teaching on the local church.
2. There is an implicit appeal that runs throughout the New Testament. Every letter penned by one of the Apostles was presented within the context of local churches. There is no part of the Christian life in the epistles which is detached from that overarching framework. Every command begins within one's local church. For example, 1 John 3:11-18: "Love your brother". Implicit in this command is the knowledge of how your brother needs to be loved. You must know your brother’s needs--you must have a relationship with your fellow church members! Paul assumes the same kind of close relationships for the purpose of spiritual care: In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul expects these believers to know this man is in an adulteress relationship and to work at restoring him to the Lord.
3. I can think of few things as counter-intuitive as a man training for eldership to pull back from involvement in the local church so he can prepare for eldership. The catchy slogan would be: "Seminary doesn't make pastors, the local church makes pastors. Or maybe for clarity's sake, "chapel and shepherding groups don't make pastors, but the main meeting of the church and intra-church small groups make pastors".
4. Not to mention the command in Hebrews to "not forsake the assembling of the saints" (10:25), a command that in many contexts (determined by the elders) includes more than one weekly meeting (I think I'm departing from CHBC here). At Sojourn, our elders have decided that intentional community is important enough to require participation in a weekly small group (obviously there are exceptions due to scheduling, etc.). In terms of these groups, our standard line to seminarians is, if you don't have enough time for a small group, you probably don't have enough time for this church.
5. It's also the local church that is supposed to confirm the call to ministry in any individual pursuing the pastorate. And, just like every other command in the New Testament, the qualifications Paul gives for elders are all set in the context of one's local assembly. The members of one's church must be able to see these qualifications, which (especially in regards to being apt to teach) means they should have more than just a surface involvement in the church. In these ways, those studying to be pastors should be MORE involved than others. Paul's qualifications (which are expected from all Christians) should be embodied in these men. He should be what my pastor calls a "Gospel Pace-Setter" in his church. It is these men and these men alone whom Paul tells us are called for the eldership.
6. One big task in eldering seems to be learning how to shepherd those who aren't like you. For most of us that means non suburb-raised/white/reformed/20-somethings. This opportunity is much more available in local churches than in seminary. Involvement in the church will teach you how to love those who aren't like you.
7. Finally, the local church is the hope of the world. It is the front-line work. It is the church that the gates of Hades will not overcome. It is the church that Christ promised to build. And it is the church that displays to the world the closest thing any of us can see to the coming kingdom of heaven.
To begin, the Lord in His infinite kindness has used Southern Seminary for Sojourn's good. Four of our six elders are graduates of SBTS and probably around 50-65% of our members serving actively and consistently in the church (above and beyond regular weekly attendance) are seminarians. We've had seminary professors come and speak at our Theology Breakfast (Wellum, Ware, Whitney, Seifrid, Allison) and preach on Sundays. So what we're not saying is that we dislike the seminary or think it's doing more harm than good.
However, there are some potential pitfalls when one begins a seminary education.
1. What we have seen oftentimes is the supposed idea that a Christian's time in seminary is sort of its own 'dispensation'. What would be required from a regular lay-member isn't required from the seminary student because he's working towards future ministry and can't be hampered by present ministry. This kind of thinking creates a two-tier membership, an idea which is completely foreign to the New Testament's teaching on the local church.
2. There is an implicit appeal that runs throughout the New Testament. Every letter penned by one of the Apostles was presented within the context of local churches. There is no part of the Christian life in the epistles which is detached from that overarching framework. Every command begins within one's local church. For example, 1 John 3:11-18: "Love your brother". Implicit in this command is the knowledge of how your brother needs to be loved. You must know your brother’s needs--you must have a relationship with your fellow church members! Paul assumes the same kind of close relationships for the purpose of spiritual care: In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul expects these believers to know this man is in an adulteress relationship and to work at restoring him to the Lord.
3. I can think of few things as counter-intuitive as a man training for eldership to pull back from involvement in the local church so he can prepare for eldership. The catchy slogan would be: "Seminary doesn't make pastors, the local church makes pastors. Or maybe for clarity's sake, "chapel and shepherding groups don't make pastors, but the main meeting of the church and intra-church small groups make pastors".
4. Not to mention the command in Hebrews to "not forsake the assembling of the saints" (10:25), a command that in many contexts (determined by the elders) includes more than one weekly meeting (I think I'm departing from CHBC here). At Sojourn, our elders have decided that intentional community is important enough to require participation in a weekly small group (obviously there are exceptions due to scheduling, etc.). In terms of these groups, our standard line to seminarians is, if you don't have enough time for a small group, you probably don't have enough time for this church.
5. It's also the local church that is supposed to confirm the call to ministry in any individual pursuing the pastorate. And, just like every other command in the New Testament, the qualifications Paul gives for elders are all set in the context of one's local assembly. The members of one's church must be able to see these qualifications, which (especially in regards to being apt to teach) means they should have more than just a surface involvement in the church. In these ways, those studying to be pastors should be MORE involved than others. Paul's qualifications (which are expected from all Christians) should be embodied in these men. He should be what my pastor calls a "Gospel Pace-Setter" in his church. It is these men and these men alone whom Paul tells us are called for the eldership.
6. One big task in eldering seems to be learning how to shepherd those who aren't like you. For most of us that means non suburb-raised/white/reformed/20-somethings. This opportunity is much more available in local churches than in seminary. Involvement in the church will teach you how to love those who aren't like you.
7. Finally, the local church is the hope of the world. It is the front-line work. It is the church that the gates of Hades will not overcome. It is the church that Christ promised to build. And it is the church that displays to the world the closest thing any of us can see to the coming kingdom of heaven.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A MULTI-SITE CHURCH?
Thinking about multi-site church (one church with many campuses) has always been an academic exercise for me. I figured I would have to come down somewhere at some point, talking to a fellow brother in ministry who might be considering this kind of church structure, or some situation like that, but that time wasn't now. Well, in the sovereignty of the Lord, that time is now. My church is considering multi-site.
My questions are these:
1. Is multi-site biblical? Is it required? commended in some circumstances? prohibited? Or do we have no biblical teaching to help us answer this question?
2. If there isn't explicit biblical teaching on this subject, are there qualities about God, the Gospel, or the church from which this model of church would skew or detract?
3. Is multi-site prudent? If it's not required/commended in Scripture, is it the best/wisest option of all those available?
4. What are the motives behind multi-site?
5. How involved should the congregation be in thinking through and making this decision?
My questions are these:
1. Is multi-site biblical? Is it required? commended in some circumstances? prohibited? Or do we have no biblical teaching to help us answer this question?
2. If there isn't explicit biblical teaching on this subject, are there qualities about God, the Gospel, or the church from which this model of church would skew or detract?
3. Is multi-site prudent? If it's not required/commended in Scripture, is it the best/wisest option of all those available?
4. What are the motives behind multi-site?
5. How involved should the congregation be in thinking through and making this decision?
Saturday, November 3, 2007
THE MEANING OF 'HILASTERION' FROM "PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS"
"As we have seen, God's wrath at human sin is prominent in Romans generally, central in the section that immediately precedes Romans 3:21-26, and absent from God's justified people in the section that immediately follows. It is by setting forth his Son as 'a sacrifice of atonement' that God has turned his wrath aside, leaving his people justified before him. That hilasterion here means 'propitiation' could hardly be clearer."
Monday, October 29, 2007
ON 'TITHING'
The idea of ‘tithing’ 10% of our income has probably done more harm than good. Many of us can give more than 10%, even if it requires a less lavish lifestyle.* And there are surely some among us (newly weds, students, those in serious debt, etc.) who would be unwise and irresponsible to give 10%. For this season of their life, they must give less. The truth is the Lord has never been interested in percentages. He is very interested however, in the attitude and intentions of our heart.
*C.S. Lewis said, “If our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.”(Mere Christianity, 86)
*C.S. Lewis said, “If our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.”(Mere Christianity, 86)
HONOR ALL MEN. LOVE THE BROTHERHOOD: Part of a Theology of Financial Giving
The Lord has been kind to lay on the hearts of the members and pastors of Sojourn the desire to care for those outside the walls of this church, both in Germantown and the wider city of Louisville. We believe this is a charge issued from our Lord Himself in passages such as Luke 10:29-37 (the story of the good Samaritan). But we must not forget that which the New Testament makes clear is the prerequisite to this charge. We’re instructed by the apostle Peter, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood.” (1 Peter 2:17) We are to honor everyone, but we are to love the brotherhood (It's crucial to note that the Bible is using the terms 'brother' and 'sister' not in the sense of a universal brotherhood of all men--an idea spun by liberal theologians at the beginning of the last century--but rather fellow Christians). Paul echoes this sentiment in his letter to the church at Galatia: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” (Galatians 6:10)
It is clear in Scripture that there is a marked difference between a believer’s responsibility towards a fellow believer and his/her responsibility towards a non-believer (we’ve seen Jesus recognize this distinction throughout our study of Matthew: 12:46-49, 18:17; see also 1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Deuteronomy sheds some light on one practical implication of this difference: “You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you…There should be no poor among you…If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.” (Deuteronomy 15:3-4, 7-8)
The Bible teaches that loving our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is much more than just financial care—but it is certainly not less! The Apostle John exhorts us, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” (1 John. 3:17-18) And James tells us, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:16)
THE EXAMPLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH
The book of Acts documents for us the very first Christian church, containing the very first Christians. And what is it that we find these immature young believers doing right away? “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” (Acts 2:44-45) We know from a few chapters later that the church in Acts wasn’t practicing Socialism—individuals still owned property, had money, etc. But all of a sudden, these men and women were thinking and living out of a Gospel framework—and it was this Gospel that compelled them to give freely to their brothers and sisters in need. As a matter of fact, this love for the brotherhood—believers taking care of one another—is what Paul seems to be looking for first and foremost when determining whether new churches are in fact TRUE Christian churches. Thus, even when these young believers get so much wrong (1 Cor. 5; Gal. 1:6, 3:1-5; Rev. 2-3), Paul can always recognize them as true Christians by their love for one another: “We ought always to give thanks to God for you brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.” (2 Thes. 1:3; also see Eph. 1:15-16;Col. 1:3-4) And again, “Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another.” (1 Thessalonians 4:9) We see here that there is something wrought in the Christian by the Holy Spirit that compels him to love his fellow brothers and sisters and that this love is one distinguishing mark of true faith in Christ.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SOJOURN?
First and foremost we should give to the offering on Sundays. Part of owning our own building is maintaining that building and part of growing numerically is providing enough staff to shepherd this ever-increasing flock. The Lord has blessed us with wise, caring leadership whom we should trust to leverage our resources to maintain the ministries of our church—ministries that by necessity require money.
But it also means we should go beyond just giving an offering on Sundays. It means that the members of this church should be involved in one another’s lives enough to spot real personal needs. It means we should buy one another meals. It means we should give struggling newly-weds money for rent. It means that if we’re able, we find a seminary student who seems to be gifted for ministry and we help pay for his/her education. It means we pay for a car repair that we know a poor college student in our community group can’t afford. It means we offer to take care of baby-sitting bills for a few months to give parents one less expense to worry about. In short, it means that we operate out of the same gospel framework we see among the new believers in Acts 2, praying that by the Lord’s grace and through the power of the Gospel, we would give not only according to our means, but also beyond our means (2 Corinthians 8:1-3). May the Lord find in Sojourn this sort of love for one another that is ever-increasing!
It is clear in Scripture that there is a marked difference between a believer’s responsibility towards a fellow believer and his/her responsibility towards a non-believer (we’ve seen Jesus recognize this distinction throughout our study of Matthew: 12:46-49, 18:17; see also 1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Deuteronomy sheds some light on one practical implication of this difference: “You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you…There should be no poor among you…If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.” (Deuteronomy 15:3-4, 7-8)
The Bible teaches that loving our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is much more than just financial care—but it is certainly not less! The Apostle John exhorts us, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” (1 John. 3:17-18) And James tells us, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:16)
THE EXAMPLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH
The book of Acts documents for us the very first Christian church, containing the very first Christians. And what is it that we find these immature young believers doing right away? “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” (Acts 2:44-45) We know from a few chapters later that the church in Acts wasn’t practicing Socialism—individuals still owned property, had money, etc. But all of a sudden, these men and women were thinking and living out of a Gospel framework—and it was this Gospel that compelled them to give freely to their brothers and sisters in need. As a matter of fact, this love for the brotherhood—believers taking care of one another—is what Paul seems to be looking for first and foremost when determining whether new churches are in fact TRUE Christian churches. Thus, even when these young believers get so much wrong (1 Cor. 5; Gal. 1:6, 3:1-5; Rev. 2-3), Paul can always recognize them as true Christians by their love for one another: “We ought always to give thanks to God for you brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.” (2 Thes. 1:3; also see Eph. 1:15-16;Col. 1:3-4) And again, “Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another.” (1 Thessalonians 4:9) We see here that there is something wrought in the Christian by the Holy Spirit that compels him to love his fellow brothers and sisters and that this love is one distinguishing mark of true faith in Christ.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SOJOURN?
First and foremost we should give to the offering on Sundays. Part of owning our own building is maintaining that building and part of growing numerically is providing enough staff to shepherd this ever-increasing flock. The Lord has blessed us with wise, caring leadership whom we should trust to leverage our resources to maintain the ministries of our church—ministries that by necessity require money.
But it also means we should go beyond just giving an offering on Sundays. It means that the members of this church should be involved in one another’s lives enough to spot real personal needs. It means we should buy one another meals. It means we should give struggling newly-weds money for rent. It means that if we’re able, we find a seminary student who seems to be gifted for ministry and we help pay for his/her education. It means we pay for a car repair that we know a poor college student in our community group can’t afford. It means we offer to take care of baby-sitting bills for a few months to give parents one less expense to worry about. In short, it means that we operate out of the same gospel framework we see among the new believers in Acts 2, praying that by the Lord’s grace and through the power of the Gospel, we would give not only according to our means, but also beyond our means (2 Corinthians 8:1-3). May the Lord find in Sojourn this sort of love for one another that is ever-increasing!
Friday, October 26, 2007
JONATHAN EDWARDS ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL
Edwards sumamrizes what 'arminians', 'pelagians' and others who 'oppose calvinism' mean by 'liberty of the will'. There are three components:
1. It consists in a self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself...so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without (outside of) itself
2. Indifference belongs to liberty...the mind, previous to the act of volition, is in equilibrio (not favoring one way or the other...completely impartial)
3. Contingency is required...opposition to all necessity or any fixed or certain connection between cause and effect of an action
JE summarizes their position: "They suppose the essence of liberty so much to consist in these things, that unless the will of man be free in this sense, he has no real freedom, how much soever he may be at liberty to act according to his will."
Edwards reasons differently:
"The choice of the mind never departs from that which, at the time, and with respect to the direct and immediate objects of decision, appears most agreeable and pleasing, all things considered."
"A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his Will."
"Thus, when a drunkard has his liquor before him...if he chooses to drink it, and not to let it alone; then this action, as it stands in the view of his mind, with all that belongs to its appearance there, is more agreeable and pleasing than letting it alone."
1. It consists in a self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself...so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without (outside of) itself
2. Indifference belongs to liberty...the mind, previous to the act of volition, is in equilibrio (not favoring one way or the other...completely impartial)
3. Contingency is required...opposition to all necessity or any fixed or certain connection between cause and effect of an action
JE summarizes their position: "They suppose the essence of liberty so much to consist in these things, that unless the will of man be free in this sense, he has no real freedom, how much soever he may be at liberty to act according to his will."
Edwards reasons differently:
"The choice of the mind never departs from that which, at the time, and with respect to the direct and immediate objects of decision, appears most agreeable and pleasing, all things considered."
"A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his Will."
"Thus, when a drunkard has his liquor before him...if he chooses to drink it, and not to let it alone; then this action, as it stands in the view of his mind, with all that belongs to its appearance there, is more agreeable and pleasing than letting it alone."
Monday, October 22, 2007
JONATHAN EDWARDS ON OUR NEED FOR WRITTEN REVELATION
Edwards includes in his "Mischellaneous Observations" several arguments for the truth of the Christian religion (his apologetic scheme). He points out the superiority of a religion with written revelation over those without:
"For though it must be granted, that men who are willing to transgress, may abuse written as well as unwritten laws, and expound them so as may best serve their turn upon occassion; yet is must be allowed, that, in the nature of the thing, revelation is a better guard than a bare scheme of principles wtihout it. For men must take more pains to conquer the sense of a standing, written law, which is ready to confront them upon all occasions. They must more industriously tamper with their passions, and blind their understandings, before they can bring themselves to believe what they have a mind to believe, in contradiction to the words of an express and formal declaration of God Almighty's will, than there can be any pretence of occasion for, when they have no more than their own thoughts and ideas to manage. These are flexible things, and a man may much mroe easily turn and wind them as he pleases, than he can evade a plain and positive law..."
"For though it must be granted, that men who are willing to transgress, may abuse written as well as unwritten laws, and expound them so as may best serve their turn upon occassion; yet is must be allowed, that, in the nature of the thing, revelation is a better guard than a bare scheme of principles wtihout it. For men must take more pains to conquer the sense of a standing, written law, which is ready to confront them upon all occasions. They must more industriously tamper with their passions, and blind their understandings, before they can bring themselves to believe what they have a mind to believe, in contradiction to the words of an express and formal declaration of God Almighty's will, than there can be any pretence of occasion for, when they have no more than their own thoughts and ideas to manage. These are flexible things, and a man may much mroe easily turn and wind them as he pleases, than he can evade a plain and positive law..."
Sunday, October 21, 2007
ANSELM (1033-1109 A.D.) ON THE PROPITIATORY NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT
"If the Lord God will judge thee say, 'Lord, I place the death of your Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy judgment: in no other way do I contend with Thee.' If he says to thee that thou art a sinner, say, 'Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and my sins'...If he shall say that he is angry with thee, say, 'Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy anger.'"
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
LEON MORRIS AND FRIENDS ON THE WRATH OF GOD: Selections from "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross"
"Underlying the fact that these and other things are said to turn away the divine wrath is the basic truth that God is by nature merciful rather than wrathful. Indeed wrath may be thought of as His 'strange work' (Is. 28:21)...While wrath is a dreadful reality, it must not be taken as the last word about God." (Morris)
"If we understand it properly (God's wrath) it has nothing whatever to do with primitiveness, with naive anthropomorphism. On the contrary, it is the necessary expression of God, taking himself and us seriously. He takes us so seriously that our changed attitude with regard to him produces a change in his attitude towards us... The term 'God's wrath' therefore means that the breach of communion, which has been made from our side, means also a breach for God. It means that our guilt is guilt in his sight too, that our separation from him is a reality for him too, that his holy will, encountering resistance, becomes in itself resistance." (Emil Bruner)
"Indeed, it is largely because wrath is so fully personal in the Old Testament that mercy becomes so fully personal, for mercy is the action of the same God who was angry, allowing His wrath to be turned away." (Morris)
"Whoever thinks he can smile at God's wrath will never praise him eternally for his grace." (Heinrich Vogel)
"If we understand it properly (God's wrath) it has nothing whatever to do with primitiveness, with naive anthropomorphism. On the contrary, it is the necessary expression of God, taking himself and us seriously. He takes us so seriously that our changed attitude with regard to him produces a change in his attitude towards us... The term 'God's wrath' therefore means that the breach of communion, which has been made from our side, means also a breach for God. It means that our guilt is guilt in his sight too, that our separation from him is a reality for him too, that his holy will, encountering resistance, becomes in itself resistance." (Emil Bruner)
"Indeed, it is largely because wrath is so fully personal in the Old Testament that mercy becomes so fully personal, for mercy is the action of the same God who was angry, allowing His wrath to be turned away." (Morris)
"Whoever thinks he can smile at God's wrath will never praise him eternally for his grace." (Heinrich Vogel)
Sunday, September 23, 2007
-A CALL TO SPIRITUAL REFORMATION- BY DA CARSON
"What a man is alone on his knees before God, that he is, and no more". –M’Cheyne
Sometimes in Scripture an aspect of the Christian life is seen as so central, that the biblical authors saw explicit command as unnecessary. An example of this would be the importance of the local church. There are very few places where a New Testament author says explicitly, “Join a church and attend that church every week. This is important.” What we do see is the overwhelming assumption of the New Testament authors that every Christian will be involved in a local expression of the body of Christ. Prayer is much the same way. There are several explicit commands to pray, but more than that, we see Christ, Paul, and others in the Bible simply assuming that Christians WILL pray—a much stronger argument than a few proof-texts. Prayer is important, thus a good book on prayer is a helpful book for a Christian to read.
There are few authors who have been as spiritually useful in preaching, writing, speaking, and teaching as D. A. Carson. He is as consistently careful in his writing as he is prolific (authoring or editing over 45 books). Time and time again, in a sea of sloppy, novel and unbiblical ‘Christian’ books, I find myself commending not only single volumes by Carson, but Carson himself. Trust this man! He has clearly articulated the Gospel over and over again. The Bible is his sole authority. And his teaching is accompanied by a life that has borne much fruit (the type of teacher Christ tells His disciples to trust).
His book, A Call to Spiritual Reformation, contains no pithy acronyms or cute illustration-centered chapter titles. It doesn’t furnish me with a long list of killer quotes, or clever new ideas. The power of this book lies in its simply systematizing what the New Testament epistles teach us about prayer. Carson has single-handedly changed the way I pray—that is, how I think about prayer and what I pray for. By pointing to the Apostle Paul, he has helped me to make three crucial category shifts:
1. Individual to corporate
I bet 90% of my prayers before reading this book were egocentric. These prayers weren’t categorically bad—Paul prayed for himself, as did Jesus. But the model we’re given in the New Testament epistles for prayer is radically other-centered. Therefore, Carson says, “If in our prayers we are to develop a mental framework analogous to Paul’s, we must look for signs of grace in the lives of other Christians, and give God thanks for them.” Paul was constantly praising the Lord for and interceding for his brothers and sisters through prayer. This is one big reason why we have a member directory at Sojourn. The design is that we would work through that directory page-by-page, praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Carson’s book taught me how to pray biblical prayers for these brothers and sisters.
2. Material/physical to spiritual
Most believers have experienced some sort of prayer meeting when the majority of the time is taken up by requests for so and so’s grandmother’s surgery next week, etc. Not a bad request. Bad if that is the steady diet of a prayer meeting. When Paul encounters churches facing intense physical challenges: persecution, famine, etc., he doesn’t pray for what we might—deliverance from these enemies and good health—material and physical concerns. Rather, he prays that they would, “have growing faith” and “increasing love”, be “holy and blameless before the Lord at Christ’s coming”, and “filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”, “bear fruit in every good work”, and “grow in the knowledge of God”. Paul’s words echo the teachings of Jesus: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) As followers of Jesus, we adopt his teaching that the most important and vital battles are happening not in the physical world, but in the spiritual. This book taught me how to pray in light of that fact.
3. Temporal and temporary (the here and now) to Future and final
It’s natural to be affixed on what’s right in front of you without much of a future perspective. We think about our present situation to the detriment of the future. The phenomenon of credit card debt alone furnishes us with proof of this tendency in sinful men and women. But Christianity doesn’t offer us our full hope here and now. We’re waiting for something. Paul says that he longs to “strike the tent” and go home—he’s merely camping in the wilderness of this world (Philippians). Our faith is built on the truth that we are hoping and waiting towards a future event. Carson says, “Can biblical spirituality long survive where Christians are not oriented to the world to come? And, in this context, can we expect to pray aright unless we are oriented to the world to come?” And we shouldn’t forget that the Bible ends on just this note: “Come Lord Jesus!” A Call To Spiritual Reformation has reminded me of these truths and given me a model of prayer that aims towards the future and final.
Sometimes in Scripture an aspect of the Christian life is seen as so central, that the biblical authors saw explicit command as unnecessary. An example of this would be the importance of the local church. There are very few places where a New Testament author says explicitly, “Join a church and attend that church every week. This is important.” What we do see is the overwhelming assumption of the New Testament authors that every Christian will be involved in a local expression of the body of Christ. Prayer is much the same way. There are several explicit commands to pray, but more than that, we see Christ, Paul, and others in the Bible simply assuming that Christians WILL pray—a much stronger argument than a few proof-texts. Prayer is important, thus a good book on prayer is a helpful book for a Christian to read.
There are few authors who have been as spiritually useful in preaching, writing, speaking, and teaching as D. A. Carson. He is as consistently careful in his writing as he is prolific (authoring or editing over 45 books). Time and time again, in a sea of sloppy, novel and unbiblical ‘Christian’ books, I find myself commending not only single volumes by Carson, but Carson himself. Trust this man! He has clearly articulated the Gospel over and over again. The Bible is his sole authority. And his teaching is accompanied by a life that has borne much fruit (the type of teacher Christ tells His disciples to trust).
His book, A Call to Spiritual Reformation, contains no pithy acronyms or cute illustration-centered chapter titles. It doesn’t furnish me with a long list of killer quotes, or clever new ideas. The power of this book lies in its simply systematizing what the New Testament epistles teach us about prayer. Carson has single-handedly changed the way I pray—that is, how I think about prayer and what I pray for. By pointing to the Apostle Paul, he has helped me to make three crucial category shifts:
1. Individual to corporate
I bet 90% of my prayers before reading this book were egocentric. These prayers weren’t categorically bad—Paul prayed for himself, as did Jesus. But the model we’re given in the New Testament epistles for prayer is radically other-centered. Therefore, Carson says, “If in our prayers we are to develop a mental framework analogous to Paul’s, we must look for signs of grace in the lives of other Christians, and give God thanks for them.” Paul was constantly praising the Lord for and interceding for his brothers and sisters through prayer. This is one big reason why we have a member directory at Sojourn. The design is that we would work through that directory page-by-page, praying for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Carson’s book taught me how to pray biblical prayers for these brothers and sisters.
2. Material/physical to spiritual
Most believers have experienced some sort of prayer meeting when the majority of the time is taken up by requests for so and so’s grandmother’s surgery next week, etc. Not a bad request. Bad if that is the steady diet of a prayer meeting. When Paul encounters churches facing intense physical challenges: persecution, famine, etc., he doesn’t pray for what we might—deliverance from these enemies and good health—material and physical concerns. Rather, he prays that they would, “have growing faith” and “increasing love”, be “holy and blameless before the Lord at Christ’s coming”, and “filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”, “bear fruit in every good work”, and “grow in the knowledge of God”. Paul’s words echo the teachings of Jesus: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) As followers of Jesus, we adopt his teaching that the most important and vital battles are happening not in the physical world, but in the spiritual. This book taught me how to pray in light of that fact.
3. Temporal and temporary (the here and now) to Future and final
It’s natural to be affixed on what’s right in front of you without much of a future perspective. We think about our present situation to the detriment of the future. The phenomenon of credit card debt alone furnishes us with proof of this tendency in sinful men and women. But Christianity doesn’t offer us our full hope here and now. We’re waiting for something. Paul says that he longs to “strike the tent” and go home—he’s merely camping in the wilderness of this world (Philippians). Our faith is built on the truth that we are hoping and waiting towards a future event. Carson says, “Can biblical spirituality long survive where Christians are not oriented to the world to come? And, in this context, can we expect to pray aright unless we are oriented to the world to come?” And we shouldn’t forget that the Bible ends on just this note: “Come Lord Jesus!” A Call To Spiritual Reformation has reminded me of these truths and given me a model of prayer that aims towards the future and final.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
CARL F. HENRY'S FIFTEEN THESES: A Christian View of Revelation
This list and the extensive (and I do mean extensive!) writing behind this list (Henry's magnum opus: God, Revelation and Authority) would have been such a help to me in college at Carson-Newman. Phrases such as, “Inerrancy is heresy” and “Conservatives are Bible-olaters” were fairly common in my Religion classes. But it wasn’t my professors pointing to the so-called inconsistencies in the text, or variants between manuscripts that fooled me. The trap set for me was much more unassuming and inconspicuous at the time (and infinitely more damaging!). The attack I fell prey to was waged against the very nature of Scripture.
Dr. Don Olive distinguished between two schools of thought in one of my philosophy classes: 1) The Bible as revelation and, 2) The Bible as ‘the record of revelation’. The ‘special revelation of God’, said Dr. Olive, was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone! The Bible was merely the record of this revelation. This presentation sounded very pious to my immature Christian ears and I bought it! I even mentioned it to Christian friends who I recognized were not making this ‘helpful distinction’ (Lord have mercy on me for saying false things!!).
This argument, or an argument of the more Barthian flare (Scripture as a window into the revelation of God, but not revelation itself) is much more devastating than a simple attack on the 'discontinuity' of the order of events in the life of Christ between Mark and Luke, or something similar. The previous argument cuts to the core of what Scripture is. Dr. Henry’s theses have become such a wonderful framework for helping me along in a true and God-honoring doctrine of Scripture. Here they are.
1. Revelation is a divinely initiated activity, God’s free communication by which he alone turns his personal privacy into a deliberate disclosure of his reality.
2. Divine revelation is given for human benefit, offering us privileged communion with our Creator in the kingdom of God.
3. Divine revelation does not completely erase God’s transcendent mystery, inasmuch as God the Revealer transcends his own revelation.
4. The very fact of disclosure by the one living God assures the comprehensive unity of divine revelation.
5. Not only the occurrence of divine revelation, but also its very nature, content, and variety are exclusively God’s determination.
6. God’s revelation is uniquely personal both in content and form.
7. God reveals himself not only universally in the history of the cosmos and of the nations, but also redemptively within this external history in unique saving acts.
8. The climax of God’s special revelation is Jesus of Nazareth, the personal incarnation of God in the flesh; in Jesus Christ the source and content of revelation converge and coincide.
9. The mediating agent in all divine revelation is the Eternal Logos—preexistent, incarnate, and now glorified.
10. God’s revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptual-verbal form.
11. The Bible is the reservoir and conduit of divine truth.
12. The Holy Spirit superintends the communication of divine revelation, first, by inspiring the prophetic-apostolic writings, and second, by illuminating and interpreting the scripturally given Word of God.
13. As bestower of spiritual life the Holy Spirit enables individuals to appropriate god’s revelation savingly, and thereby attests the redemptive power of the revealed truth of God in the personal experience of reborn sinners.
14. The church approximates the kingdom of God in miniature; as such she is to mirror to each successive generation the power and joy of the appropriated realities of divine revelation.
15. The self-manifesting God will unveil his glory in a crowing revelation of power and judgment; in this disclosure at the consummation of the ages, God will vindicate righteousness and justice, finally subdue and subordinate evil, and bring into being a new heaven and earth.
***Notice how he has set up these theses doctrinally: Aspects connected with the Father (1-7) the Son (8,9) the Bible (10, 11), the Holy Spirit (12, 13) the church (14) the consummation (15).
Dr. Don Olive distinguished between two schools of thought in one of my philosophy classes: 1) The Bible as revelation and, 2) The Bible as ‘the record of revelation’. The ‘special revelation of God’, said Dr. Olive, was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone! The Bible was merely the record of this revelation. This presentation sounded very pious to my immature Christian ears and I bought it! I even mentioned it to Christian friends who I recognized were not making this ‘helpful distinction’ (Lord have mercy on me for saying false things!!).
This argument, or an argument of the more Barthian flare (Scripture as a window into the revelation of God, but not revelation itself) is much more devastating than a simple attack on the 'discontinuity' of the order of events in the life of Christ between Mark and Luke, or something similar. The previous argument cuts to the core of what Scripture is. Dr. Henry’s theses have become such a wonderful framework for helping me along in a true and God-honoring doctrine of Scripture. Here they are.
1. Revelation is a divinely initiated activity, God’s free communication by which he alone turns his personal privacy into a deliberate disclosure of his reality.
2. Divine revelation is given for human benefit, offering us privileged communion with our Creator in the kingdom of God.
3. Divine revelation does not completely erase God’s transcendent mystery, inasmuch as God the Revealer transcends his own revelation.
4. The very fact of disclosure by the one living God assures the comprehensive unity of divine revelation.
5. Not only the occurrence of divine revelation, but also its very nature, content, and variety are exclusively God’s determination.
6. God’s revelation is uniquely personal both in content and form.
7. God reveals himself not only universally in the history of the cosmos and of the nations, but also redemptively within this external history in unique saving acts.
8. The climax of God’s special revelation is Jesus of Nazareth, the personal incarnation of God in the flesh; in Jesus Christ the source and content of revelation converge and coincide.
9. The mediating agent in all divine revelation is the Eternal Logos—preexistent, incarnate, and now glorified.
10. God’s revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptual-verbal form.
11. The Bible is the reservoir and conduit of divine truth.
12. The Holy Spirit superintends the communication of divine revelation, first, by inspiring the prophetic-apostolic writings, and second, by illuminating and interpreting the scripturally given Word of God.
13. As bestower of spiritual life the Holy Spirit enables individuals to appropriate god’s revelation savingly, and thereby attests the redemptive power of the revealed truth of God in the personal experience of reborn sinners.
14. The church approximates the kingdom of God in miniature; as such she is to mirror to each successive generation the power and joy of the appropriated realities of divine revelation.
15. The self-manifesting God will unveil his glory in a crowing revelation of power and judgment; in this disclosure at the consummation of the ages, God will vindicate righteousness and justice, finally subdue and subordinate evil, and bring into being a new heaven and earth.
***Notice how he has set up these theses doctrinally: Aspects connected with the Father (1-7) the Son (8,9) the Bible (10, 11), the Holy Spirit (12, 13) the church (14) the consummation (15).
Monday, September 10, 2007
JONATHAN EDWARDS ON PERSONAL ASSURANCE OF SALVATION
"The real Christian, enjoying assurance of salvation, has holy boldness but he also has less of self-confidence and more modesty...He is less apt than others to be shaken in faith, but more apt than others to be moved with solemn warnings, and with God's frowns, and with the calamities of others. He has the firmest comfort, but the softest heart. Richer than others, he is the poorest of all in spirit: the tallest and strongest saint, but the least and tenderest child among them." (taken from Religous Affections)
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
WHEN IS IT SAFE TO DIVERGE FROM ONE'S ELDERS?
The relationship between elders and individual members of a congregation seems a bit tricky to me. In the kindness of the Lord, I have the opportunity to reflect on this relationship with Rob Plummer and Mike Cosper (two of our elders at Sojourn) on a somewhat regular basis (especially since the elders of our church have put foward a new proposed constitution). We have agreed on some things and disagreed on others. These are my thoughts so far:
On the one hand, we are commanded to "obey our leaders and submit to them" and to "imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:17, 7). On the other hand, we can see a consistent emphasis in the NT epistles on congregational responsibility/authority. Here’s the support I see in Scripture—(and anybody reading this blog is very likely more able than I am in interpretation, so correct me by all means!)
The churches in Revelation (not just the elders) are held responsible for corporate sins and not just individual ones (also in 1 Timothy). Paul holds the members (he doesn't mention the elders) of the church at Galatia responsible for ensuring biblical teaching and resisting those who are heretical—even if it’s the Apostle Paul! 1 Corinthians makes clear, as does Matthew 18 that the congregation has a responsibility in church discipline and 2 Corinthians 2 shows that the gathering has some responsibility in reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul lays out a grid for judging leaders, stressing that some should be kicked out! Dave, the Carson article Sojourn gave us to read for leadership training describes the Systematic deductions that I draw from these texts:
"In 1 Corinthians and again in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus insists that when things come down to the crunch, you tell the conflict to the church. You tell it to the church—for not only is there wisdom in the whole church, but there is a final sanction in the whole church. In fact, in the New Testament, there is a running tension between the authority that rests with the church and the authority bound up with the elders." (Don Carson)
So it is absolutely crucial that I am obeying and submitting to my leaders, but it's equally crucial that I realize there are situations when by doing that, I could displease the Lord. Some examples would be Martin Luther disobeying his leaders, or J. Gresham Machen, John Murray and others in the PCUSA disobeying and disassociating with their denomination due to its Gospel aberrations. From what I can tell, these men would have been sinning had they obeyed their leaders.
It's also one reason (I think) that, by the Lord's grace, we have denominations. The First Century church's concerns weren't with the ordinances--not out of neglect or irresponsibility--they just hadn't gotten there yet! By the Lord's grace, we have had two thousand years to study Scripture further and develop more personal, biblically-based convictions (that as individuals we believe we are held accountable by the Lord to act upon), such as views of pre-conversion baptism, the way local churches should be governed, etc.
So, I guess I think that the normal pattern of doctrinal belief is to trust one's elders, but I would add two exceptions to this regular rule. When there is:
1. Divergence on the fundamentals of the Gospel or any other seemingly clear teaching of Scripture (like God knowing the future, or eschatology-just kidding)
2. Divergence on doctrine that affects the practice of a local church (and implicitly gives a definition for "church" that you think is unbiblical). So, I think it would be displeasing to the Lord for me to stay at a Presbyterian church in Louisville if I became thoughtfully convinced that the Bible teaches believers baptism, even if that Presbyterian church was orthodox on the essentials of the faith and my elders thought I should stay.
The importance of these exceptions is hightened when we realize Scripture makes clear that as church members we are responsible in some way for what we are letting our elders teach us and (if it's not too strong to say), we are somehow endorsing their teaching by remaining in the pew.
On the one hand, we are commanded to "obey our leaders and submit to them" and to "imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:17, 7). On the other hand, we can see a consistent emphasis in the NT epistles on congregational responsibility/authority. Here’s the support I see in Scripture—(and anybody reading this blog is very likely more able than I am in interpretation, so correct me by all means!)
The churches in Revelation (not just the elders) are held responsible for corporate sins and not just individual ones (also in 1 Timothy). Paul holds the members (he doesn't mention the elders) of the church at Galatia responsible for ensuring biblical teaching and resisting those who are heretical—even if it’s the Apostle Paul! 1 Corinthians makes clear, as does Matthew 18 that the congregation has a responsibility in church discipline and 2 Corinthians 2 shows that the gathering has some responsibility in reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul lays out a grid for judging leaders, stressing that some should be kicked out! Dave, the Carson article Sojourn gave us to read for leadership training describes the Systematic deductions that I draw from these texts:
"In 1 Corinthians and again in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus insists that when things come down to the crunch, you tell the conflict to the church. You tell it to the church—for not only is there wisdom in the whole church, but there is a final sanction in the whole church. In fact, in the New Testament, there is a running tension between the authority that rests with the church and the authority bound up with the elders." (Don Carson)
So it is absolutely crucial that I am obeying and submitting to my leaders, but it's equally crucial that I realize there are situations when by doing that, I could displease the Lord. Some examples would be Martin Luther disobeying his leaders, or J. Gresham Machen, John Murray and others in the PCUSA disobeying and disassociating with their denomination due to its Gospel aberrations. From what I can tell, these men would have been sinning had they obeyed their leaders.
It's also one reason (I think) that, by the Lord's grace, we have denominations. The First Century church's concerns weren't with the ordinances--not out of neglect or irresponsibility--they just hadn't gotten there yet! By the Lord's grace, we have had two thousand years to study Scripture further and develop more personal, biblically-based convictions (that as individuals we believe we are held accountable by the Lord to act upon), such as views of pre-conversion baptism, the way local churches should be governed, etc.
So, I guess I think that the normal pattern of doctrinal belief is to trust one's elders, but I would add two exceptions to this regular rule. When there is:
1. Divergence on the fundamentals of the Gospel or any other seemingly clear teaching of Scripture (like God knowing the future, or eschatology-just kidding)
2. Divergence on doctrine that affects the practice of a local church (and implicitly gives a definition for "church" that you think is unbiblical). So, I think it would be displeasing to the Lord for me to stay at a Presbyterian church in Louisville if I became thoughtfully convinced that the Bible teaches believers baptism, even if that Presbyterian church was orthodox on the essentials of the faith and my elders thought I should stay.
The importance of these exceptions is hightened when we realize Scripture makes clear that as church members we are responsible in some way for what we are letting our elders teach us and (if it's not too strong to say), we are somehow endorsing their teaching by remaining in the pew.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE
I would not have been able to understand the title of this blog five years ago. It wasn't until my Junior year in college that I read Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will". Luther served me well by explaining very simply and succinctly the doctrine of the perspecuity (clarity) of Scripture. He says,
"I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture...If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another...I know that to many people a great deal remanis obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer."
God has given us His Word, so naturally He intends for us to understand it. This truth is so intuitive and presuppositional, that I don't feel the need to pull out individual verses to try and prove it (these verses are available however: Ps.19:4, 2Tim.3:16, 2Cor.3:15) The perspecuity of Scripture means several things:
1. The assertions of deconstructionists, Postmoderns, Neo-Orthodox-ers, and some Emergents that Scripture is something less than 'reliable propositional truth'--that is, WORDS which CORRESPOND with real TRUTH, are doomed.
2. As Christians, we can't shirk doctrinal responsibility by appeals to "mystery". It's true that Deuteronomy 29:29 says there are "secret things that belong to the Lord", but only after it talks about "the things that are revealed" being for us. Now don't get me wrong, we should never confidently affirm a belief that isn't represented in Scripture, either explicitly, or from clear implication--in other words, we should be extremely slow to speculate. I have no interest in trying to answer a doctrinal question which Scripture never asks/answers. However, it is our responsibility to hang on the every Word of our Savior, exhausting all our resources to understand His intended meaning.
3. Our rule for life and doctrine, faith and practice is found totally and only in the Bible. Church history is a wonderful resource for interpretation of those verses. My spiritual fathers give me precedent for so much (and this is an understatement!!) that I believe the Bible teaches. But at the end of the day, I am responsible to this book and this book alone. I shouldn't be scared (definitely cautious!!!) to part ways with Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or J.I. Packer for that matter. I am responsible to this Book alone.
"I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture...If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another...I know that to many people a great deal remanis obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer."
God has given us His Word, so naturally He intends for us to understand it. This truth is so intuitive and presuppositional, that I don't feel the need to pull out individual verses to try and prove it (these verses are available however: Ps.19:4, 2Tim.3:16, 2Cor.3:15) The perspecuity of Scripture means several things:
1. The assertions of deconstructionists, Postmoderns, Neo-Orthodox-ers, and some Emergents that Scripture is something less than 'reliable propositional truth'--that is, WORDS which CORRESPOND with real TRUTH, are doomed.
2. As Christians, we can't shirk doctrinal responsibility by appeals to "mystery". It's true that Deuteronomy 29:29 says there are "secret things that belong to the Lord", but only after it talks about "the things that are revealed" being for us. Now don't get me wrong, we should never confidently affirm a belief that isn't represented in Scripture, either explicitly, or from clear implication--in other words, we should be extremely slow to speculate. I have no interest in trying to answer a doctrinal question which Scripture never asks/answers. However, it is our responsibility to hang on the every Word of our Savior, exhausting all our resources to understand His intended meaning.
3. Our rule for life and doctrine, faith and practice is found totally and only in the Bible. Church history is a wonderful resource for interpretation of those verses. My spiritual fathers give me precedent for so much (and this is an understatement!!) that I believe the Bible teaches. But at the end of the day, I am responsible to this book and this book alone. I shouldn't be scared (definitely cautious!!!) to part ways with Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or J.I. Packer for that matter. I am responsible to this Book alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
