A long and 'big question' chapter - but well worth reading and thinking about.
The definition early on is useful - that communicable refers to things which God shares as opposed to things which He talks about. Although by the time I had got to the end of page 157 and the discussion about completenss and overlaps I was a little uncertain that the classification was actually going to be helpful!
Partway through page 159 the point is made that anthropomorphic language about God can only be understood rightly be continual reading of scripture so that what is being said is placed within the entire context of scripture. This would mean that someone who was not versed in the Bible would not really understand what is meant - for example - by "God is love" but because they have their own concept of love they would believe that they did. If this so, confusion could easily happen & probably does.
I found section 'f' on page 168 interesting when talking about the unchangeableness of God. While this is a position which I have held for as long as I can remember, the reasons presented here as to why this is important were useful. In a similar way, the opening thoughts on pages 168/9 on the meaning of the infinity of God were large & powerful statements.
Later on pag 169, there are some fascinating comments about 'before time' which - from our human & finite perspective - are very difficult to comprehend and must be particularly difficult for non-Christians who are trying to think about a god within the context of their own understanding. For example "before there was a universe, and before there was time, God always existed, without beginning, and without being influence by time."
The last part of page 176 & first of 177 seeks to address the question of whether God is directly present in unbelievers - which would seem reasonable since previously the point has been made that God is everywhere. I was left confused about what was being said here. Any insight?
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Monday, 16 April 2007
The Knowability of God
Apart from knowability not being a word, this is a great chapter!
I like the way in which the scope of 'not knowing but continuing to discover' God is built up from "we can't know God fully" through "we can't fully understand any one thing about God" to "even in eternity we will continue to find out more about God".
It rightly goes against some of the ways in which some people try and put God into a 'box' of their own understanding and insist that they need to understand God in order to believe in Him.
Surely it is only God who is past our understanding who is worth trusting and praising.
It is good - section C - however to realise that we can (and should) know true things about God!
Its also interesting - particularly in the light of recent conversations - that Grudem does make the point that its not just that we can find out facts about God but that we can actually know him in a real and personal way.
One amazing thought which occurred to me (which I don't think I saw in this chapter!) is that even though God is so infinitely vast that we cannot fully comprehend him (or any part of him) his knowledge is so infinite that he can comprehend himself! This seems like a big statement to me....
Enjoy the chapter
I like the way in which the scope of 'not knowing but continuing to discover' God is built up from "we can't know God fully" through "we can't fully understand any one thing about God" to "even in eternity we will continue to find out more about God".
It rightly goes against some of the ways in which some people try and put God into a 'box' of their own understanding and insist that they need to understand God in order to believe in Him.
Surely it is only God who is past our understanding who is worth trusting and praising.
It is good - section C - however to realise that we can (and should) know true things about God!
Its also interesting - particularly in the light of recent conversations - that Grudem does make the point that its not just that we can find out facts about God but that we can actually know him in a real and personal way.
One amazing thought which occurred to me (which I don't think I saw in this chapter!) is that even though God is so infinitely vast that we cannot fully comprehend him (or any part of him) his knowledge is so infinite that he can comprehend himself! This seems like a big statement to me....
Enjoy the chapter
Why (not) so blue?
You'd have thought it was easy to have a post published in blue, wouldn't you? Maybe it's just Google reprimanding me for writing posts which are too long. Whatever the reason, from now I'll put my posts in italics so hopefully we can tell the difference between mine and yours without this silly looking half-blue nonsense.
Is anyone out there?
As I turned the last page of chapter 8, I saw that we are now starting on the doctrine of God and felt a pulse of excitement. Though I have enjoyed getting a clearer idea of what the Bible is, I would say amen to the quote (I can’t remember whose so am paraphrasing): “I love the Bible in the same way I love my eyes, not because they are beautiful but because they allow me to see that which is beautiful”. I’m looking forward to finding out more of what God says about himself, to stir up my affections to adore him more. Since the first chapter (on the Existence of God) is very short I thought I’d do it straight away so I can get closer to the meaty chapters.
It’s so sad to see in Romans 1 that all people “suppress the truth” and have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man…” (who, as a sidetrack, were made in the image of God – so it’s exchanging God for an image of an image of God!) but I’ve seen it happen. Pete Woodcock was telling us that in atheist communist countries the schools had to teach children not to believe in God because it’s innate in us, yet when Dr Bill Craig presented five strong arguments for the existence of God the response of Dr Lewis Wolpert (his debating opponent) was “it’s all bunkum, every bit of it!” Our collective suppressing of the truth works, until people can “deny that they have an inner sense of God” (p141, footnote).
Incidentally, the arguments that Dr Craig used were number 1, 2 and 4 from p143 (which is possibly why I don’t understand argument 3 on that page!) and the argument from the miracles and resurrection of Jesus and the argument from personal experience of God. He used a slightly tighter version of the cosmological argument, which I found useful. He said that everything which begins must have a cause so there must be something which is eternal. Cosmology tells us that the universe had a start, so there must be something outside the universe – and therefore non-material and non-temporal (God) – which is eternal. John Humphrys (who was chairing the debate) gave his opinions on it in the Telegraph, here.
For Christians, since God is invisible and we are running on a promise until Jesus returns, the question of 'is this really true' still crops up from time to time. That is why I was encouraged by the strength of feeling that a sentence on page 142 produced:
Yet though the existence of God is not seriously in doubt for Christians, we can often act as atheists. I was challenged by the statement on page 142 that everything created continuously cries “God made me!” and question 1 which asked whether we see the whole earth as full of God’s glory (Isaiah 6:3) and if not, why not? Very often when I see aspects of creation I don’t turn that into praise of God – or even recognition of him. O, for a heart that recognises the Creator’s touch in everything and thanks him for it!
It’s so sad to see in Romans 1 that all people “suppress the truth” and have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man…” (who, as a sidetrack, were made in the image of God – so it’s exchanging God for an image of an image of God!) but I’ve seen it happen. Pete Woodcock was telling us that in atheist communist countries the schools had to teach children not to believe in God because it’s innate in us, yet when Dr Bill Craig presented five strong arguments for the existence of God the response of Dr Lewis Wolpert (his debating opponent) was “it’s all bunkum, every bit of it!” Our collective suppressing of the truth works, until people can “deny that they have an inner sense of God” (p141, footnote).
Incidentally, the arguments that Dr Craig used were number 1, 2 and 4 from p143 (which is possibly why I don’t understand argument 3 on that page!) and the argument from the miracles and resurrection of Jesus and the argument from personal experience of God. He used a slightly tighter version of the cosmological argument, which I found useful. He said that everything which begins must have a cause so there must be something which is eternal. Cosmology tells us that the universe had a start, so there must be something outside the universe – and therefore non-material and non-temporal (God) – which is eternal. John Humphrys (who was chairing the debate) gave his opinions on it in the Telegraph, here.
For Christians, since God is invisible and we are running on a promise until Jesus returns, the question of 'is this really true' still crops up from time to time. That is why I was encouraged by the strength of feeling that a sentence on page 142 produced:
“The intensity of this awareness [of our relationship with God] for a Christian is such that though we have not seen our Lord Jesus Christ, we indeed love him (1 Peter 1:8).”Amen, I do love him, and long for the day when my awareness of him will be by my physical eyes.
Yet though the existence of God is not seriously in doubt for Christians, we can often act as atheists. I was challenged by the statement on page 142 that everything created continuously cries “God made me!” and question 1 which asked whether we see the whole earth as full of God’s glory (Isaiah 6:3) and if not, why not? Very often when I see aspects of creation I don’t turn that into praise of God – or even recognition of him. O, for a heart that recognises the Creator’s touch in everything and thanks him for it!
Sufficient for what?
The question you finished with (avoiding the obvious, bunny rabbit answer ‘the Bible’!) is an interesting one but before I think about it, there were two other things that made me think as I went through this chapter.
The first was the statement on page 130, talking about the church age.
“After the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the founding of the early church as recorded in the New Testament, and the assembling of the canon, no further central redemptive acts of God in history (acts that have direct relevance for all God’s people for all subsequent time) have occurred.”
This excited me for two reasons – firstly and trivially that I’ve been trying to say the same thing for a year and not been able to word it anything like that neatly! More importantly, though, it’s great to think that no “central redemptive acts” have occurred – or will occur until the return of Jesus. This means that however much the world or church changes, the Scriptures will be relevant and sufficient until that day. We in the church age also have an amazingly privileged position in history, as none of those who lived before saw the work of God or the character of God revealed as clearly as we have in the person of Jesus, the work of the cross and the words of the Bible. What a joy!
The second was from pages 132-133 (D5) where Grudem talks about the fact that “nothing is sin that is not forbidden by Scripture either explicitly or by implication”. This gives us great freedom in how we live – as long as we are within the bounds of Scripture. On the other hand, Grudem points out that when we make up non-Scriptural rules for ourselves it can result in frustration, false guilt and legalism. This was surely the case in Colossae where the teaching was “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (Colossians 2:21) and Paul was – to say the least – unimpressed: “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (2:23). I’ve been thinking about Colossians this week, which is probably why I particularly noticed that point of Grudem’s.
To your question though, what does the sufficiency relate to? It seems to me that – according to Grudem’s definition on page 127 – it is only about absolutes, things which are the same for all people at all time. So your assumption that the scope of Grudem’s comments are ‘doctrinal & moral’ questions seems to hold. That said, I was also surprised that he didn’t address the issue of choices which aren’t directly guided by the Bible – even though it isn’t in his definition of sufficiency this would seem like the chapter to do it. Maybe there was going to be a chapter 8a: The Insufficiency of Scripture, but editors removed it?! More seriously, I think in later discussion of the Spirit and spiritual gifts it will come up.
To take your example of what job to do, I think all we could say for certain from this chapter is that no choice would be sinful unless it directly contradicted the Bible. Since the other means we would use to make a decision (in question 3 Grudem lists advice, sermons, conscience, feelings, leading of the Spirit, etc.) are all fallible, so it is a great encouragement to know that everything we need to know to please God by trusting and obeying him is recorded inerrantly in the Bible. The most important decision we’ll make in any day is whether to continue to trust the gospel, so it is not surprising that that is the primary question Scripture is devoted to answering.
As a side note, I recently overheard a snippet of a conversation between a pair of Christians who seemed to be worried about missing God’s will for their lives by making the wrong career decision. Though this is an important decision and it is well worth praying about it, asking God for wisdom, talking with mature Christians and so on I wanted to jump in and encourage them that they were over worried – though the fact that I didn’t know them and only overheard them as we were on the same pavement meant I decided just praying for them would be better. I would have said that God “establishes our steps” (Proverbs 16:9) and that for Christians “all things work together for good” (Romans 8:28). I don’t think we can miss God’s best for us by stuffing up a decision, unless it’s one where the right answer is clear from his word.
Agree or disagree?
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Sufficiency of Scripture
Well, its been some time but here's some thoughts on the next chapter - the Sufficiency of Scripture - which links to some of the discussions we have been having recently.
Grudem's defintion (page 127) is interesting - "...means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly" - in that it seems to exclude more of the daily "everyday" things of life.
He makes a useful comment on this in his footnote at the bottom of page 128 where he accepts that God does guide us subjectively (and points to scriptural references to back this up) but makes the point that this subjective guidance points to scriptural texts. He still seems to 'limit' this to moral commands or 'facts'.
I particularly like D3 (page 131) where he states that 'God does not require us to believe anything about himself or his redemptive work that is not found in scripture'. Its a good reminder that while other writings can often be very helpful, our definitive source is uniquely scripture itself.
The first paragraph of 133 reminds us of the importance to check the rules / traditions / practices of any particular Christian group (such as a church) against the actual teaching of scripture - again, a useful principle.
I do find it surprising that he doesn't address the topic of understanding God's will for our lives when the Bible doesn't particularly address it - for example in the area of what job one should do. There are clearly principles which apply - to do with morality and so forth - which might cause a scripturally-based Christian to decide against working for a cigarette company (for example) but are these types of questions to be answered from the Bible?
A pointer to Grudem's view on this may be found in his second question on page 135 where he talks about 'doctrinal' & 'moral' questions as though these are the scope of what he is talking about, or is this an unwarranted assumption?
So in the context of the above what does sufficiency really relate to?
Grudem's defintion (page 127) is interesting - "...means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly" - in that it seems to exclude more of the daily "everyday" things of life.
He makes a useful comment on this in his footnote at the bottom of page 128 where he accepts that God does guide us subjectively (and points to scriptural references to back this up) but makes the point that this subjective guidance points to scriptural texts. He still seems to 'limit' this to moral commands or 'facts'.
I particularly like D3 (page 131) where he states that 'God does not require us to believe anything about himself or his redemptive work that is not found in scripture'. Its a good reminder that while other writings can often be very helpful, our definitive source is uniquely scripture itself.
The first paragraph of 133 reminds us of the importance to check the rules / traditions / practices of any particular Christian group (such as a church) against the actual teaching of scripture - again, a useful principle.
I do find it surprising that he doesn't address the topic of understanding God's will for our lives when the Bible doesn't particularly address it - for example in the area of what job one should do. There are clearly principles which apply - to do with morality and so forth - which might cause a scripturally-based Christian to decide against working for a cigarette company (for example) but are these types of questions to be answered from the Bible?
A pointer to Grudem's view on this may be found in his second question on page 135 where he talks about 'doctrinal' & 'moral' questions as though these are the scope of what he is talking about, or is this an unwarranted assumption?
So in the context of the above what does sufficiency really relate to?
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Necessity of Scripture
Maybe it's because I haven't done this for a while, but I can't find anything to say about this chapter that will open up a good discussion. I'll have to rely on you, then, and in the meantime jot down a few thoughts that I thought while reading. Mostly they were things I'd already realised or decided, but it's been helpful to bring all my thoughts on the subject together and remind myself how important the Bible is!
I liked the argument that we can't know any fact with certainty unless we know every fact. For example, I may 'know' that Paris is the capital of France, but I can't know with certainty that there isn't a piece of information out there somewhere which will disprove it. It may be that everyone I've spoken to has either been lying or lied to. Unless I know every piece of information in the universe, I can't remove that possibility. That means that in this life I will never be absolutely certain that E equals mc squared, that England won the World Cup in '66 or that dogs have four legs - there may be some fact out there that proves these things wrong. Of course, since God does know every fact he can be certain about everything he knows and, since he does not lie, we can be absolutely certain about everything he says.
Even our knowledge of theology can be uncertain. I was thinking recently about limited atonement - apparently one of the central doctrines of the Reformation. I couldn't defend it from Scripture (a combination of not being as versed in Scripture as I could be, and not really knowing what limited atonement means!) so was wondering whether or not I should believe it. I came to the conclusion that I should believe it but in the same way that I believe Paris is the capital of France - because smart people who have thought about it tell me so. Because I haven't seen a proof of it from the Bible I don't, at this point, believe it with absolute certainty as I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that there is one, and hope to find it (perhaps through reading this book) but until then I am content to believe without being certain.
What else? There was a helpful reminder that Old Testament believers trusted in the Messiah who hadn't come yet for the same reason we trust in the Messiah who has already come - because of the word of God.
There are things that we can know without the Bible. We know that God exists and that he is powerful, and we know that he has moral requirements for our lives. We know our sin is wrong and we even know that the punishment is death (Romans 1:32). What is tragic is that in our sinfulness we each suppress these truths and harden our consciences. In fact (and I may get unpopular here) it seems that we know enough from the world around us to condemn us for not living up to what we know, but we don't know enough to save us unless we hear the gospel message from the Bible. Evangelism and missions are so important because men and women have no chance of correctly interpreting what they know from creation unless they see it in light of the certain revelation we have from God in the Bible, so can never come to saving faith without someone going and telling them what God says.
I liked the argument that we can't know any fact with certainty unless we know every fact. For example, I may 'know' that Paris is the capital of France, but I can't know with certainty that there isn't a piece of information out there somewhere which will disprove it. It may be that everyone I've spoken to has either been lying or lied to. Unless I know every piece of information in the universe, I can't remove that possibility. That means that in this life I will never be absolutely certain that E equals mc squared, that England won the World Cup in '66 or that dogs have four legs - there may be some fact out there that proves these things wrong. Of course, since God does know every fact he can be certain about everything he knows and, since he does not lie, we can be absolutely certain about everything he says.
Even our knowledge of theology can be uncertain. I was thinking recently about limited atonement - apparently one of the central doctrines of the Reformation. I couldn't defend it from Scripture (a combination of not being as versed in Scripture as I could be, and not really knowing what limited atonement means!) so was wondering whether or not I should believe it. I came to the conclusion that I should believe it but in the same way that I believe Paris is the capital of France - because smart people who have thought about it tell me so. Because I haven't seen a proof of it from the Bible I don't, at this point, believe it with absolute certainty as I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that there is one, and hope to find it (perhaps through reading this book) but until then I am content to believe without being certain.
What else? There was a helpful reminder that Old Testament believers trusted in the Messiah who hadn't come yet for the same reason we trust in the Messiah who has already come - because of the word of God.
There are things that we can know without the Bible. We know that God exists and that he is powerful, and we know that he has moral requirements for our lives. We know our sin is wrong and we even know that the punishment is death (Romans 1:32). What is tragic is that in our sinfulness we each suppress these truths and harden our consciences. In fact (and I may get unpopular here) it seems that we know enough from the world around us to condemn us for not living up to what we know, but we don't know enough to save us unless we hear the gospel message from the Bible. Evangelism and missions are so important because men and women have no chance of correctly interpreting what they know from creation unless they see it in light of the certain revelation we have from God in the Bible, so can never come to saving faith without someone going and telling them what God says.
Thursday, 15 February 2007
Invited to dinner...
Over at the girltalk blog we've been invited to dinner at the Mahaney's and their daughters' (metaphorically, of course!). Over the last four days the four families have been detailing some of their meal time habits and it's been great reading. I particularly liked the first - largely, I think, because it's incredibly cute - but all of them are great.
Since we are at the Kitchen Table, and since meal times together are a great part of the day (when I'm not ruining it by being in London!) I thought I'd share what I've gained from reading along.
PS. I'm thinking I may have a chance to get back into Systematic Theology over the weekend. I'm looking forward to starting again, but I've fallen out of the habit and it may take me a while to work out what I'm doing again. Race ya!
Since we are at the Kitchen Table, and since meal times together are a great part of the day (when I'm not ruining it by being in London!) I thought I'd share what I've gained from reading along.
PS. I'm thinking I may have a chance to get back into Systematic Theology over the weekend. I'm looking forward to starting again, but I've fallen out of the habit and it may take me a while to work out what I'm doing again. Race ya!
Friday, 9 February 2007
For the two of you
Over at The Rebelution, Alex and Brett Harris have just finished a survey of around 1000 Christian guys on what forms of clothing are most/least helpful in our fight for sexual purity. It was requested by Christian girls and has always been based on grace rather than legalism but to ensure it is published and received in the right spirit they're asking Christian guys (12+ so you're both in!) to sign a petition affirming seven things about the way we want women to approach modesty. They're doing a lot of great work over there, and if you want to join them I thought I'd give you the chance...
Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow!
Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow!
Saturday, 27 January 2007
Un(clarity) clarified!
Hi Richard - thanks your update makes a lot of sense and I do like the parallels you are bringing out between Matthew's account of the early life of Jesus and the Exodus account.
(My problem with links is when I try and get a single word as opposed to the full html string so I shan't try one here!)
With regards to the Nehemiah question I don't really think there is a problem here. While in section C of this chapter (page 108) Grudem does state that the clarity of scripture means "that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will rad it seeking God's help and being willing to follow it". However, in the very next sentence he acknowledges that many people (even God's people) do misinterpret it!
His conclusion on this seems to be at the end of section D where he states that the problem is not with Scripture but ourselves "we affirm that all the teachings of Scripture are clear and able to be understood, but we also recognise that people (often through their own shortcomings) misunderstand what is clearly written in Scripture.
He follows this up in section E where he defends the positions of scholars & teachers and what they do. The Nehemiah reference would be an example of this.
So I think that what Grudem lays out is consistent with the Nehemiah account.
Having said all of the above I am still left with a question. I totally believe that "the Bible is written in such a way that all things necessary for our salvation ... are very clearly set forth in Scripture" (selectively quoting Grudem) but I also believe that there are layers of meaning that we only understand as we grow in Christian faith, maturity and relationship with God. The writer to the Hebrews seems to refer to this in 5:11 - 6:2.
This may be agreeing with Grudem where he says that our lack of understanding is our own fault but I think its a slightly more positive way of saying it!
By analogy, you are expected to understand some fairly complicated mathematics that it would have been unreasonable to expect you to grasp when doing GCSE maths. However that base - and associated teaching - was a necessary foundation for what you are coping with now.
Hope this makes some sort of sense.
(My problem with links is when I try and get a single word as opposed to the full html string so I shan't try one here!)
With regards to the Nehemiah question I don't really think there is a problem here. While in section C of this chapter (page 108) Grudem does state that the clarity of scripture means "that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will rad it seeking God's help and being willing to follow it". However, in the very next sentence he acknowledges that many people (even God's people) do misinterpret it!
His conclusion on this seems to be at the end of section D where he states that the problem is not with Scripture but ourselves "we affirm that all the teachings of Scripture are clear and able to be understood, but we also recognise that people (often through their own shortcomings) misunderstand what is clearly written in Scripture.
He follows this up in section E where he defends the positions of scholars & teachers and what they do. The Nehemiah reference would be an example of this.
So I think that what Grudem lays out is consistent with the Nehemiah account.
Having said all of the above I am still left with a question. I totally believe that "the Bible is written in such a way that all things necessary for our salvation ... are very clearly set forth in Scripture" (selectively quoting Grudem) but I also believe that there are layers of meaning that we only understand as we grow in Christian faith, maturity and relationship with God. The writer to the Hebrews seems to refer to this in 5:11 - 6:2.
This may be agreeing with Grudem where he says that our lack of understanding is our own fault but I think its a slightly more positive way of saying it!
By analogy, you are expected to understand some fairly complicated mathematics that it would have been unreasonable to expect you to grasp when doing GCSE maths. However that base - and associated teaching - was a necessary foundation for what you are coping with now.
Hope this makes some sort of sense.
Friday, 26 January 2007
(Un)Clarity
Dad, your links still aren't working - I don't know what you're doing, but it's bizarre! Copying and pasting straight from the address bar usually works fine for me.
Seems my comments on the clarity of Scripture were anything but clear. Guess that means I won't be writing the 67th book of the Canon any time soon! Allow me to try to clear things up...
In Matthew 2-7, Matthew records the events he's writing about so as to make parallels to the Exodus. So, he's the only one to refer to Jesus' family spending time in Egypt and the killing of baby boys (cf Exodus 1:16,22) then he orders the beginning of his account to present Jesus' baptism (paralleled in passing through the Red Sea), the 40 days in the desert (40 years for the Israelites) and Jesus' teaching from a mountain (paralleled by the 10 Commandments at Mount Sinai). Matthew spends more time than the other gospel writers portraying Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy and this is one of them - he fulfilled the story of Israel and of Moses and is the "prophet like Moses" of Deuteronomy 18:18.
I agree that you get more from the OT quotations/allusions if you have the OT with you - I just couldn't decide whether my definition of "fully understand" meant that you could "fully understand" without discovering the richness of those details. I think that's just semantics, though!
It seems I forgot to actually ask the question on Nehemiah 8:8 that I meant to, so here it is. Does the fact that it seems the Israelites needed help (interpretation/teaching) to understand the Law cause a problem with the view of clarity of Scripture that Systematic Theology puts forwards? If it does then how serious is it, and if not then why not?
Hope that's a little easier to follow.
Seems my comments on the clarity of Scripture were anything but clear. Guess that means I won't be writing the 67th book of the Canon any time soon! Allow me to try to clear things up...
In Matthew 2-7, Matthew records the events he's writing about so as to make parallels to the Exodus. So, he's the only one to refer to Jesus' family spending time in Egypt and the killing of baby boys (cf Exodus 1:16,22) then he orders the beginning of his account to present Jesus' baptism (paralleled in passing through the Red Sea), the 40 days in the desert (40 years for the Israelites) and Jesus' teaching from a mountain (paralleled by the 10 Commandments at Mount Sinai). Matthew spends more time than the other gospel writers portraying Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy and this is one of them - he fulfilled the story of Israel and of Moses and is the "prophet like Moses" of Deuteronomy 18:18.
I agree that you get more from the OT quotations/allusions if you have the OT with you - I just couldn't decide whether my definition of "fully understand" meant that you could "fully understand" without discovering the richness of those details. I think that's just semantics, though!
It seems I forgot to actually ask the question on Nehemiah 8:8 that I meant to, so here it is. Does the fact that it seems the Israelites needed help (interpretation/teaching) to understand the Law cause a problem with the view of clarity of Scripture that Systematic Theology puts forwards? If it does then how serious is it, and if not then why not?
Hope that's a little easier to follow.
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Understanding the NT without the OT
Richard, not sure what reference you meant when you wrote Matthew 2-7 (Clarity) but looking at Matthew 4:1-11 one could argue that understanding the context of the quotations which Jesus uses when being tempted by the devil really provides some deeper meaning to what is being said.
So in 4:4, the quotation is from Deuteronomy 8:3 where Moses is talking at the end of the forty years in the wilderness. In both cases, a particular period had been completed successfully and they were looking forward to the future. Moses goes on to recount the things that God had done for them through their journey. Jesus would have been very familiar with the story of the wanderings in the desert and these verses – the context for his reference – serve as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and provision and the importance of putting God first. He would also have known how God provided for them as they moved into the next stage of their journey and he could well have been reminding the devil of this fact.
So I suggest that the OT context actually enriches our understanding of what the NT is saying.
With regards to Nehemiah 8:8 I would say that there was teaching that went with the reading to help people understand. There is a parallel (in a totally different context) in Acts 8:31. What's behind the question?
So in 4:4, the quotation is from Deuteronomy 8:3 where Moses is talking at the end of the forty years in the wilderness. In both cases, a particular period had been completed successfully and they were looking forward to the future. Moses goes on to recount the things that God had done for them through their journey. Jesus would have been very familiar with the story of the wanderings in the desert and these verses – the context for his reference – serve as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and provision and the importance of putting God first. He would also have known how God provided for them as they moved into the next stage of their journey and he could well have been reminding the devil of this fact.
So I suggest that the OT context actually enriches our understanding of what the NT is saying.
With regards to Nehemiah 8:8 I would say that there was teaching that went with the reading to help people understand. There is a parallel (in a totally different context) in Acts 8:31. What's behind the question?
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
Clarity questions
Good answering, Dad. It may be interesting when we get onto other, perhaps more contentious, chapters whether there are things we've always assumed the Bible says but find it doesn't.
It was a different question that caught my eye - can the New Testament be fully understood by people who do not have access to an Old Testament? My problem is that I can't settle on a definition of 'fully understood'. I could understand the point of Hebrews 11 without knowing the details of the events it describes, so in this case the OT isn't necessary to understand. However, in Matthew 2-7 I wouldn't see how Matthew is making parallels between the Exodus and the beginning of Jesus' ministry because I wouldn't know the details of the former. But I'd understand what Matthew was telling me about Jesus - the thing I actually wouldn't see is that Israel was a picture of things to come, so actually it's understanding of the OT I'd be missing. So am I fully understanding the NT? Depends on my definition...! Flipping the question, I don't think that the OT can be fully understood without the NT as we wouldn't see that many of the things it talks about are just shadows, and the "substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:17).
One question of my own. What do you think of Nehemiah 8:8? There are lots of alternatives for the word translated "clearly" in ESV, but do you get the impression that the people wouldn't have understood if the Law was simply read out, and there was some sort of sermon so they could understand if for themselves?
It was a different question that caught my eye - can the New Testament be fully understood by people who do not have access to an Old Testament? My problem is that I can't settle on a definition of 'fully understood'. I could understand the point of Hebrews 11 without knowing the details of the events it describes, so in this case the OT isn't necessary to understand. However, in Matthew 2-7 I wouldn't see how Matthew is making parallels between the Exodus and the beginning of Jesus' ministry because I wouldn't know the details of the former. But I'd understand what Matthew was telling me about Jesus - the thing I actually wouldn't see is that Israel was a picture of things to come, so actually it's understanding of the OT I'd be missing. So am I fully understanding the NT? Depends on my definition...! Flipping the question, I don't think that the OT can be fully understood without the NT as we wouldn't see that many of the things it talks about are just shadows, and the "substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:17).
One question of my own. What do you think of Nehemiah 8:8? There are lots of alternatives for the word translated "clearly" in ESV, but do you get the impression that the people wouldn't have understood if the Law was simply read out, and there was some sort of sermon so they could understand if for themselves?
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
Genesis revisited, er, revisited?
Your link is doing strange things - it's pointing somewhere weird that doesn't exist!
Seriously, though, I see what you're saying about the blindness thing. I think I just made up the 3-day thing. I might have heard it somewhere and had it lurking. I guess that by itself it wouldn't be enough to make a case and if there are stronger pointers it doesn't matter too much whether it is making a parallel itself. So in some ways it doesn't matter too much.
Exactly what Abraham thought he was saying is an interesting question. I was surprised to see him referred to as a prophet, so he must have prophesied something... It's possible to prophesy without knowing it, though (John 11:49-52). Maybe a chat for another night...
Seriously, though, I see what you're saying about the blindness thing. I think I just made up the 3-day thing. I might have heard it somewhere and had it lurking. I guess that by itself it wouldn't be enough to make a case and if there are stronger pointers it doesn't matter too much whether it is making a parallel itself. So in some ways it doesn't matter too much.
Exactly what Abraham thought he was saying is an interesting question. I was surprised to see him referred to as a prophet, so he must have prophesied something... It's possible to prophesy without knowing it, though (John 11:49-52). Maybe a chat for another night...
Genesis Revisited!
The point Richard raises when he talks about how much we should try and read into what Old Testament writers are written particulary when they are allegorising is an interesting one.
(Richard didn't explicitly restrict his comments to OT writers but I'm doing it deliberately!)
I think it is valid to see OT passages as introducing an idea which reaches its fulfilment later (most typically this is one the person or work of Jesus Christ). So I think I'm fairly relaxed regarding the suggestions Richard makes about Abraham & Isaac - I hadn't heard the 3-days parallel before!
Its an interesting question as to how the individual knew that what they were saying / the writer knew what he was writing had two meanings. For example was Abraham simply talking about God providing a lamb as a substition for Isaac or was he prophetically referring to Christ? Whichever it was, I think we are fine to look back into the Old Testament and see how it enriches our understanding of Jesus.
However we should probably try to ensure that the parallels are valid. In the Sodom case people were blinded, in the passage in Exodus the sky was made dark. The result in each case was that people were unable to see but the causes were different so it - in my mind - is less easy to make the link.
Does this help clarify anything?
(Richard didn't explicitly restrict his comments to OT writers but I'm doing it deliberately!)
I think it is valid to see OT passages as introducing an idea which reaches its fulfilment later (most typically this is one the person or work of Jesus Christ). So I think I'm fairly relaxed regarding the suggestions Richard makes about Abraham & Isaac - I hadn't heard the 3-days parallel before!
Its an interesting question as to how the individual knew that what they were saying / the writer knew what he was writing had two meanings. For example was Abraham simply talking about God providing a lamb as a substition for Isaac or was he prophetically referring to Christ? Whichever it was, I think we are fine to look back into the Old Testament and see how it enriches our understanding of Jesus.
However we should probably try to ensure that the parallels are valid. In the Sodom case people were blinded, in the passage in Exodus the sky was made dark. The result in each case was that people were unable to see but the causes were different so it - in my mind - is less easy to make the link.
Does this help clarify anything?
We are God's people
Richard raised a question regarding the authority of the church when it speaks within the context of what God has said and the importance of ensuring that what we are relying on is actually God's word.
It reminded me of a discussion I have just been part of in our housegroup where we were looking at John 3 and considering the question of why Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. We considered many options:
It reminded me of a discussion I have just been part of in our housegroup where we were looking at John 3 and considering the question of why Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. We considered many options:
- it was so he wouldn't be seen
- he was a representative of the ruling council and they didn't want it known they were speaking with Jesus
- it was the only time they could meet
We eventually concluded that we didn't know but the strong feeling was that he didn't want to be seen. In that context the discussion was fine - if we were to base church doctrine on this it could be a problem!
A trivial example but it does demonstrate the point that we need to be absolutely clear and certain of the basis on which we are saying "Thus says the Lord!"
It is difficult, though, to get away from human failings when we consider how much 'the church' speaks with God's authority. One of the problems that Protestantism has with Catholicism is that the Pope is able to speak with the authority of God - in this case it is adding to what God has said / or maybe interpreting it.
The question must be as to where the line should be drawn.
I do believe that the church should be a powerful voice representing God in this world. The reason that the world has stopped listening - in many cases - may well be that we have stopped speaking in a clear voice the message of God.
Monday, 22 January 2007
What are we?
I've just returned from the DTC Bible study, and something in Exodus 16:8 struck me and brought me back to thinking about the authority of Scripture. The Israelites are grumbling to Moses that they have no food and Moses answers, "the LORD has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him - what are we? Your grumbling is not against us bug against the LORD". The Israelites thought they were just grumbling to Moses, but as he was God's prophet they were really grumbling to God.
When we were talking about authority, we referred to Grudem's line: "disbelieving or disobeying any word of scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God". But we can take that a step further which I just hadn't thought of. Where the church is in line with the Bible, grumbling against the church is grumbling against God. When people slate the church for being arrogant, exclusive, outdated, boring, irrelevant, anti-women, anti-gay or anything else, they're actually going up against God and calling him those things. (I need to stress here that this is only true when the church is in line with Scripture - there are groups calling themselves Christians who are all of these things and should be called for it.)
I found the 'next step' of this doctrine to be an encouragement for when we end up fighting culture - we have the authority of God himself with us. But it's also a reminder how important it is for the church's teaching to only ever be in line with what we've received, and also how serious a thing it is when people ignore what they hear in church or from Christians. (Again, with the above proviso!)
I don't know, it just got me thinking. What are we? I guess when we get it right, we're speaking only God's words, with God's authority.
Am I close, do you reckon?
When we were talking about authority, we referred to Grudem's line: "disbelieving or disobeying any word of scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God". But we can take that a step further which I just hadn't thought of. Where the church is in line with the Bible, grumbling against the church is grumbling against God. When people slate the church for being arrogant, exclusive, outdated, boring, irrelevant, anti-women, anti-gay or anything else, they're actually going up against God and calling him those things. (I need to stress here that this is only true when the church is in line with Scripture - there are groups calling themselves Christians who are all of these things and should be called for it.)
I found the 'next step' of this doctrine to be an encouragement for when we end up fighting culture - we have the authority of God himself with us. But it's also a reminder how important it is for the church's teaching to only ever be in line with what we've received, and also how serious a thing it is when people ignore what they hear in church or from Christians. (Again, with the above proviso!)
I don't know, it just got me thinking. What are we? I guess when we get it right, we're speaking only God's words, with God's authority.
Am I close, do you reckon?
Sunday, 21 January 2007
How far is too far?
This is completely off topic, so do tell me if I've wondered too far from the pack, but as well as reading Systematic Theology on what the Bible teaches about the Bible I've been reading, well, the Bible which is great, but also confusing at times. So I know I'd find it helpful every now and then to throw out questions and thrash them around a little to try and clear things up in my mind. How does that sound? I don't know what the best way of doing it is, but for now I've labeled this Genesis (because the question is from Genesis) and I trust you'll think of something clever!
Genesis 22 - where Abraham almost sacrifices Isaac - is generally considered to be pretty amazing, which it is. There are extra details, though, which take a little more rooting out to discover. In v5, Abraham seems to think that Isaac will be coming back from the mountain with him - and we now know that he "considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead" - so his trust in God's ability to keep his promises was amazingly strong. Moreover, his prophetic (20:7) statement in v8, "God will provide for himself the lamb" reaches far beyond finding a ram caught in a thicket to Jesus who was sacrificed in our place. And there are other details that could be made into points. For example, Isaac could be made into a foreshadowing of Jesus in that he had to carry his own wood up the mountain (v6) as Jesus carried his cross-piece and the three day journey could be the three days in the tomb - figuratively Isaac 'died' when God told Abraham to sacrifice him, and 'undied' when God told Abraham not to.
But now I think I'm just getting silly. And this, really, is the question: how far is too far when it comes to making points from details? How much allegory is too much? How do you know when you've gone beyond what the author intended and are making your own extrapolations?
What say you?
PS. for another example, I started thinking about this slightly earlier in Genesis at chapter 19 (the destruction of Sodom). Where the only reference in Genesis to unleavened bread comes up (v3) and the angels make everyone blind (the last plauge on Egypt before the passover). Was Moses dropping these hints to tie together this story with the rescue from Egypt, or am I going crazy?
PPS. I realise this may be an impossible question to answer, so sorry for being quite random. It's just been bugging me for a few days, and any insight would be great!
Genesis 22 - where Abraham almost sacrifices Isaac - is generally considered to be pretty amazing, which it is. There are extra details, though, which take a little more rooting out to discover. In v5, Abraham seems to think that Isaac will be coming back from the mountain with him - and we now know that he "considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead" - so his trust in God's ability to keep his promises was amazingly strong. Moreover, his prophetic (20:7) statement in v8, "God will provide for himself the lamb" reaches far beyond finding a ram caught in a thicket to Jesus who was sacrificed in our place. And there are other details that could be made into points. For example, Isaac could be made into a foreshadowing of Jesus in that he had to carry his own wood up the mountain (v6) as Jesus carried his cross-piece and the three day journey could be the three days in the tomb - figuratively Isaac 'died' when God told Abraham to sacrifice him, and 'undied' when God told Abraham not to.
But now I think I'm just getting silly. And this, really, is the question: how far is too far when it comes to making points from details? How much allegory is too much? How do you know when you've gone beyond what the author intended and are making your own extrapolations?
What say you?
PS. for another example, I started thinking about this slightly earlier in Genesis at chapter 19 (the destruction of Sodom). Where the only reference in Genesis to unleavened bread comes up (v3) and the angels make everyone blind (the last plauge on Egypt before the passover). Was Moses dropping these hints to tie together this story with the rescue from Egypt, or am I going crazy?
PPS. I realise this may be an impossible question to answer, so sorry for being quite random. It's just been bugging me for a few days, and any insight would be great!
Saturday, 20 January 2007
Why disagreements when the Bible has clarity?
On page 111, Grudem asks "if the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is true, why does there seem to be so much disagreement among Christians about the teaching of the Bible?"
On page 109 he seems to suggest two answers:
On page 109 he seems to suggest two answers:
- there are things on which the Bible is silent
- we have misunderstood what the Bible is saying
While there are clearly areas where we can misunderstand, much of the weight of his argument in this chapter is that the Bible is basically understandable.
So I think the first option is an interesting one - I wonder how many things which we claim to be important in our church settings and Christian 'positions' are actually things built on church tradition (within a particular strand of church life) are things on which the Bible is silent or does not major.
If we claim that the Bible is the source of what we need in order to understand God's revelation of himself to us and in order to live as Christians (individually and collectively) then we need to guard against basing what we do / say on things which we believe to be there but actually aren't!
Friday, 19 January 2007
Full of contradictions...?
Someone suggested to me today that the burden of proof with regards to internal contradictions in the Bible is on Christians. I don't see that it can be, since the it is an impossible case to proove that the Bible is error-free (unless we take our proof from the Bible which probably wouldn't go down well), but would be easy to proove contradictions if they exist. However, the burden of proof is to find solutions to any apparant Bible difficulties which are pointed out, so I am glad that through the centuries all questions against the consistancy of the Bible have been answered. We can't be sure - as Grudem says - that there aren't other problems which haven't yet been brought to our attention, but the idea that that point can be used to dispute the inerrancy of the Bible does seem a little silly.
All of this is really by way of introduction to this link, where Jay Smith and others answer a list of "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible", which were compiled by Shabbir Ally. I've found that it's a useful resource in understanding parts of the Bible which might seem tricky at first glance. (I wouldn't suggest reading it straight through, as the shear number means it starts to get boring around 20!)
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
Inerrancy
I'm excited that it looks like I'm going to get up the first post on this chapter. Unfortunately I have very little that profound to say. It seems: the original documents were inerrant, what we have is at least 99% the same as the originals therefore what we have is at least 99% inerrant. Cool!
There was other stuff, but nothing that really jumped out at me. How about you?
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Authority
Still dealing with the word of God, now we're looking at it's authority. I had to laugh, because just after reading the chapter in Systematic Theology I took a break and opened my internet feed reader which had just one item - the manuscript of a talk on 2 Timothy 3:14-4:4 titled The Authority of the Bible! It's a pretty good talk, I think.
Back to the book and, like Dad, the main thing that struck me about this chapter was a lot of encouragement about how great the Bible is and how privileged we are to have it. In no particular order, then:
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is able to give his own considerations (v12) the same weight as instructions that Jesus gave while he was on earth (v10, see Matthew 5:32) - also in v25. This shows the authority of the apostles (and the parts of the Bible they wrote) that what they said was true and authoritative even where it didn't come directly from Jesus' lips. I say 'directly', because of course it still came from Jesus who promised in John 14:25 and John 16:13-15 that the Father would send the Holy Spirit who would remind the apostles of what Jesus said, and teach them things that Jesus didn't say while on earth but which the Holy Spirit has received from Jesus.
As Christians read the Bible, the Holy Spirit convinces us that they are the words of God, and we recognise Jesus' own voice in them (John 10:27). Indeed, the only possible source of the claim that Scripture is our highest authority must come from Scripture itself (as the Spirit works through it) or we are making the source of our claim a higher authority (p78).
"To disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disobey or disbelieve God" (p81). This is a chilling thought in many ways - as I think of the ways I'm inclined to disbelieve the Bible (see below) - but it's also incredibly gracious of God to have spoken so clearly and directly to us on what we are to believe and obey. Grudem ends this section by saying:
Scripture as it is written is authoritative. The fact that Jesus' words have been translated to Greek when written isn't a problem - nor that different gospels say slightly different things. Nor were the writers ever confused, mistaken or unclear in what they wrote. That would be to say that the words of written Scripture have less authority than what those men thought or said. Not only does this give us confidence in the text we have, but it surely leads into the sufficiency of Scripture (chapter 6). While better understanding the circumstances and contexts the books of the Bible were written into (through archaeology, extra-biblical accounts, etc.) is certainly useful, all we need to know the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) is a decent translation of the Bible. That makes me happy, but also reminds me that we should be fearful (awe-full) when we come to the Bible, fully expecting that God will speak and will expect us to change our thoughts and our lives after hearing him.
Grudem asks "questions for personal reflection", and thinking about the first two gave me further encouragement. I'm going to share (briefly!) my thoughts and see what you think...
The first question is what would you want someone to read in order to persuade them that the Bible is God's word. Intellectually it's a no-brainer (you don't have to read the chapter, just the title, to guess the answer is the Bible itself!) but practically it can be easier to rely on other things. I was struck by this a few months ago when I was looking for a copy of Luke's gospel to give to a (non-Christian) friend who I thought would like the fact Luke made sure he'd spoken to as many eye-witnesses as possible before writing (Luke 1:1-4). I could only find John and asked a (more mature and godly) friend. He is someone who knows all sorts of theology and apologetics and answers and can argue very well. If anyone would be qualified to persuade my friend that the Bible is God's word then it would be him. His response was "just get him reading the Bible". He knew and lived out that the Bible has transforming power in itself and (through the work of the Spirit) is the only thing that will persuade people of the gospel. It was a challenge to value the Bible more highly in evangelism.
The second question is what would make people want to disbelieve or disobey something in Scripture, and what's a good approach to deal with this? Speaking personally I can think of three 'categories' of things I have been tempted with. There are intellectual things, such as the Trinity which I know many people who feel they have to accept but would prefer if it went away. There are things that don't 'feel' right, such as judgment and punishment which I sometimes want to not believe because I don't like. There are lifestyle things, where I wonder is life really better God's way, or would this or that sin make my life better? I can't think of anything outside of those, but there might be. Again, the obvious (and the biblical) answer to how to deal with them is "the Bible", and I can attest to this in a couple of examples from my life. Last year, I went to a week long conference on the Trinity last year where everything the Bible said on the relationships between Father, Son and Spirit were pulled out and explained and applied. I came away not only fully convinced of the Trinity, but praising God for the loving relationship that has existed since before time and with a new desire to live in community with other Christians. Last week (and I'm still ashamed of this) in church while we were singing I suddenly couldn't believe that a God who created people who he knew were going to be punished for rejecting their maker was loving. I don't know what happened - I just couldn't believe it any more. Throughout that time, the verse "The LORD is gracious and compassionate" (from the Psalms, though I can't even remember where!) was my anchor. I knew that that was true because my Bible said so, so I knew that my objections and disbelief could take a seat. (It wasn't long before I was reminded of Jesus on the cross and couldn't see how God could be anything but love.) In those two cases, it was the words of the Bible that transformed (or kept) my belief in and obedience to God's words.
Any thoughts on those two questions (or the other two) from the two of you? This chapter really did refresh me and spur me on to increase my love for and knowledge of the Scriptures.
Back to the book and, like Dad, the main thing that struck me about this chapter was a lot of encouragement about how great the Bible is and how privileged we are to have it. In no particular order, then:
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is able to give his own considerations (v12) the same weight as instructions that Jesus gave while he was on earth (v10, see Matthew 5:32) - also in v25. This shows the authority of the apostles (and the parts of the Bible they wrote) that what they said was true and authoritative even where it didn't come directly from Jesus' lips. I say 'directly', because of course it still came from Jesus who promised in John 14:25 and John 16:13-15 that the Father would send the Holy Spirit who would remind the apostles of what Jesus said, and teach them things that Jesus didn't say while on earth but which the Holy Spirit has received from Jesus.
As Christians read the Bible, the Holy Spirit convinces us that they are the words of God, and we recognise Jesus' own voice in them (John 10:27). Indeed, the only possible source of the claim that Scripture is our highest authority must come from Scripture itself (as the Spirit works through it) or we are making the source of our claim a higher authority (p78).
"To disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disobey or disbelieve God" (p81). This is a chilling thought in many ways - as I think of the ways I'm inclined to disbelieve the Bible (see below) - but it's also incredibly gracious of God to have spoken so clearly and directly to us on what we are to believe and obey. Grudem ends this section by saying:
"Throughout the history of the church the greatest preachers have been those who have recognized that they have no authority in themselves and have seen their task as being to explain the words of Scriptures and apply them clearly to the lives of their hearers... Only the written words of Scriptures can give this kind of authority to preaching." (p82)God's word is truth (John 17:17). It is not merely true, it is truth. My maths text book may be entirely true but it is not truth. The Bible is our final standard of truth.
Scripture as it is written is authoritative. The fact that Jesus' words have been translated to Greek when written isn't a problem - nor that different gospels say slightly different things. Nor were the writers ever confused, mistaken or unclear in what they wrote. That would be to say that the words of written Scripture have less authority than what those men thought or said. Not only does this give us confidence in the text we have, but it surely leads into the sufficiency of Scripture (chapter 6). While better understanding the circumstances and contexts the books of the Bible were written into (through archaeology, extra-biblical accounts, etc.) is certainly useful, all we need to know the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) is a decent translation of the Bible. That makes me happy, but also reminds me that we should be fearful (awe-full) when we come to the Bible, fully expecting that God will speak and will expect us to change our thoughts and our lives after hearing him.
Grudem asks "questions for personal reflection", and thinking about the first two gave me further encouragement. I'm going to share (briefly!) my thoughts and see what you think...
The first question is what would you want someone to read in order to persuade them that the Bible is God's word. Intellectually it's a no-brainer (you don't have to read the chapter, just the title, to guess the answer is the Bible itself!) but practically it can be easier to rely on other things. I was struck by this a few months ago when I was looking for a copy of Luke's gospel to give to a (non-Christian) friend who I thought would like the fact Luke made sure he'd spoken to as many eye-witnesses as possible before writing (Luke 1:1-4). I could only find John and asked a (more mature and godly) friend. He is someone who knows all sorts of theology and apologetics and answers and can argue very well. If anyone would be qualified to persuade my friend that the Bible is God's word then it would be him. His response was "just get him reading the Bible". He knew and lived out that the Bible has transforming power in itself and (through the work of the Spirit) is the only thing that will persuade people of the gospel. It was a challenge to value the Bible more highly in evangelism.
The second question is what would make people want to disbelieve or disobey something in Scripture, and what's a good approach to deal with this? Speaking personally I can think of three 'categories' of things I have been tempted with. There are intellectual things, such as the Trinity which I know many people who feel they have to accept but would prefer if it went away. There are things that don't 'feel' right, such as judgment and punishment which I sometimes want to not believe because I don't like. There are lifestyle things, where I wonder is life really better God's way, or would this or that sin make my life better? I can't think of anything outside of those, but there might be. Again, the obvious (and the biblical) answer to how to deal with them is "the Bible", and I can attest to this in a couple of examples from my life. Last year, I went to a week long conference on the Trinity last year where everything the Bible said on the relationships between Father, Son and Spirit were pulled out and explained and applied. I came away not only fully convinced of the Trinity, but praising God for the loving relationship that has existed since before time and with a new desire to live in community with other Christians. Last week (and I'm still ashamed of this) in church while we were singing I suddenly couldn't believe that a God who created people who he knew were going to be punished for rejecting their maker was loving. I don't know what happened - I just couldn't believe it any more. Throughout that time, the verse "The LORD is gracious and compassionate" (from the Psalms, though I can't even remember where!) was my anchor. I knew that that was true because my Bible said so, so I knew that my objections and disbelief could take a seat. (It wasn't long before I was reminded of Jesus on the cross and couldn't see how God could be anything but love.) In those two cases, it was the words of the Bible that transformed (or kept) my belief in and obedience to God's words.
Any thoughts on those two questions (or the other two) from the two of you? This chapter really did refresh me and spur me on to increase my love for and knowledge of the Scriptures.
Tuesday, 9 January 2007
The Authority of Scripture
When reading chapter 4 which addresses the question of the authority of scripture I found myself not thinking as much about the details of the arguments but what it was actually saying to me and found it amazingly powerful and challenging.
It was a real reminder that the Bible is the written word of God - which I know I knew but the impact of that really struck home. I have been looking at Hebrews recently and was particularly struck by the first few words where it states - without any debate - that God has spoken. Its easy to go past those first words and focus on the supremacy of Christ (which is a great subject!) but it is also good to remind ourselves of that basic truth that God has chosen to reveal himself to us.
I found the definition on the opening page to be particularly challenging where it states that disbelieving or disobeying any word of scripture is to disbelive or disobey God.
Later on - page 83 - there is the statement that the Bible is God's Words which means that it is the ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be measured.
If Christians / the church / I really understood the truth of these statements and lived our lives accordingly I believe that the effect on this world would be amazing - and this is how it ought to be.
Some food for thought....
It was a real reminder that the Bible is the written word of God - which I know I knew but the impact of that really struck home. I have been looking at Hebrews recently and was particularly struck by the first few words where it states - without any debate - that God has spoken. Its easy to go past those first words and focus on the supremacy of Christ (which is a great subject!) but it is also good to remind ourselves of that basic truth that God has chosen to reveal himself to us.
I found the definition on the opening page to be particularly challenging where it states that disbelieving or disobeying any word of scripture is to disbelive or disobey God.
Later on - page 83 - there is the statement that the Bible is God's Words which means that it is the ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be measured.
If Christians / the church / I really understood the truth of these statements and lived our lives accordingly I believe that the effect on this world would be amazing - and this is how it ought to be.
Some food for thought....
Apostles & Prophets
In Ezra & Ephesians Richard raises the question of whether the 'apostles and prophets' in Ephesians 2:20 can refer to the New and Old Testaments.
This is - in my view - unlikely when taking into account 3:5 and 4:11 in the same book which seems to be referring to both apostles and prophets as being current in the life of the church at the time that Paul was writing!!
This is - in my view - unlikely when taking into account 3:5 and 4:11 in the same book which seems to be referring to both apostles and prophets as being current in the life of the church at the time that Paul was writing!!
Sunday, 7 January 2007
Ezra and Ephesians
Thanks, Dad, for your last answer. It is encouraging how much 'historical' evidence there is for the canon we have, and how much power and unity the words themselves bring to persuade us they are God's.
In answer to my own question (!) as to whether there are any Old Testament books that we know weren't written by prophets, it seems to me that Ezra wasn't. In 7:27-28 it looks like Ezra himself is speaking in the first person, so my guess is that Ezra himself wrote the book. While he was a priest descended from Aaron (7:1-5) I don't think he was a prophet. So if there are books in the Old Testament not written by prophets and in the New not written by apostles, can I take the conversation on a brief tangent? In Ephesians 2:19-21 we see the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone". What do you think of the idea that "the apostles and the prophets" means the Bible (New and Old Testaments, respectively)?
I'm not sure it's a very important question, so if it seems trivial don't worry about spending a lot of time on it. In the meantime, though, I'm going to start on chapter 4 and see if I can't get a comment on a chapter up before you this time!
In answer to my own question (!) as to whether there are any Old Testament books that we know weren't written by prophets, it seems to me that Ezra wasn't. In 7:27-28 it looks like Ezra himself is speaking in the first person, so my guess is that Ezra himself wrote the book. While he was a priest descended from Aaron (7:1-5) I don't think he was a prophet. So if there are books in the Old Testament not written by prophets and in the New not written by apostles, can I take the conversation on a brief tangent? In Ephesians 2:19-21 we see the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone". What do you think of the idea that "the apostles and the prophets" means the Bible (New and Old Testaments, respectively)?
I'm not sure it's a very important question, so if it seems trivial don't worry about spending a lot of time on it. In the meantime, though, I'm going to start on chapter 4 and see if I can't get a comment on a chapter up before you this time!
Saturday, 6 January 2007
Why I believe the Canonicity of Scripture
I wasn't sure whether canonicity was a word but it seemed to do make sense!
In his Replies on Canon, Richard responds to some of my earlier thoughts on chapter 3 and addresses most of them. He is quite right to point out the footnote reference to Donal Guthrie - I had seen it but I think I was looking for a bit more in the main text.
In his last paragraph he asks me why I am convinced that the books we have today are the complete canon - which is a very fair question!
Its not actually something I had thought about much until a few years ago. From before I can remember I was living in an environment where my parents, family and many of the people around me had no doubt that the Bible we read was the complete revealed word of God and so it was an assumption I was brought up with and never really questioned.
It was only a few years ago when in conversation with others who were challenging this that I started looking into it and reading books / articles on the subject. I actually think that the points which Richard towards the end of his reply are key when he refers to the way in which the early church came to a position on the canon. He says that:
'But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down?'
I think that the people best placed to determine what was canonical were the early church leaders and congregations and many of these decisions would have been taken based on what became 'accepted' in those first couple of centuries. This is referred to in Grudem's book but it doesn't get the weight that I would have expected.
(My comments above refer to the New Testament books, I think his comments on the Old Testament are very useful).
But going back to my earlier 'easy acceptance' of canonicity, while it wasn't something I had particularly questioned I am also aware that I have been reading this book for nearly 40 years. During that time I have been struck by its consistency and power as in no other book and have heard God speak through it. So, in addition to the position of the early church, my own experience over many years has left me confident that what we have in our current Bible is the complete revealed word of God.
In his Replies on Canon, Richard responds to some of my earlier thoughts on chapter 3 and addresses most of them. He is quite right to point out the footnote reference to Donal Guthrie - I had seen it but I think I was looking for a bit more in the main text.
In his last paragraph he asks me why I am convinced that the books we have today are the complete canon - which is a very fair question!
Its not actually something I had thought about much until a few years ago. From before I can remember I was living in an environment where my parents, family and many of the people around me had no doubt that the Bible we read was the complete revealed word of God and so it was an assumption I was brought up with and never really questioned.
It was only a few years ago when in conversation with others who were challenging this that I started looking into it and reading books / articles on the subject. I actually think that the points which Richard towards the end of his reply are key when he refers to the way in which the early church came to a position on the canon. He says that:
'But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down?'
I think that the people best placed to determine what was canonical were the early church leaders and congregations and many of these decisions would have been taken based on what became 'accepted' in those first couple of centuries. This is referred to in Grudem's book but it doesn't get the weight that I would have expected.
(My comments above refer to the New Testament books, I think his comments on the Old Testament are very useful).
But going back to my earlier 'easy acceptance' of canonicity, while it wasn't something I had particularly questioned I am also aware that I have been reading this book for nearly 40 years. During that time I have been struck by its consistency and power as in no other book and have heard God speak through it. So, in addition to the position of the early church, my own experience over many years has left me confident that what we have in our current Bible is the complete revealed word of God.
Wednesday, 3 January 2007
Replies on the Canon
I suppose the easiest thing will be for me to discuss your six points one by one, so here goes:
If I'm right, the only books where apostolic authorship is disputed (other than those five) are John's epistles and Revelation, so his statement doesn't lose too much weight if we don't accept the traditional views. And as he says in note 23, the traditional authorship is defended by Donal Guthrie in his book. I wonder whether Gruden thought that particular argument was too off-topic or too boring to include here?
I think that the main argument he makes for Hebrews inclusion is that it has divine authorship. Of course, this isn't something that can be measured directly but Christians should be able to tell the difference. If any piece of writing truly is the word of God, then it is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12, ignoring the circular logic of quoting Hebrews here!) There is something about reading the Bible than reading anything else, so doesn't it seem reasonable that early Christians - confronted with many letters from various church leaders - would be able to see which ones were dual authored with God? I'm not sure that I made much sense, sorry 'bout that.
I thought that as an apostle, Paul could do pretty much whatever he wanted! Seriously, though, does he have to have been at the events written about to confirm that the text was divinely authored? Some of the things that he wrote about he'd never seen. (We could, of course, cheekily dodge the topic by saying that in 1 Timothy 5 both Paul and God are affirming Luke as Scripture - and God was there!)
Halfway though. This is fun, though! One minor quibble, the 397AD you've quoted is when the Council of Carthage (whoever they are) wrote their list of the canon, on the previous page it says we have this list from 367. That doesn't change your point, though. But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down? This would be similar to how Jesus' divinity was not officially voted on until Nicea in 325, but this wasn't when the doctrine was formed, it was just a clarification of what had always been taught.
I had a look in the index. For "faith", "works" and "righteousness" in James and Paul we'll have to wait until chapter 36.
Finally, you said that these arguments wouldn't have convinced you, if you didn't already agree with the conclusion. So can I ask what is it that has convinced you?
If I'm right, the only books where apostolic authorship is disputed (other than those five) are John's epistles and Revelation, so his statement doesn't lose too much weight if we don't accept the traditional views. And as he says in note 23, the traditional authorship is defended by Donal Guthrie in his book. I wonder whether Gruden thought that particular argument was too off-topic or too boring to include here?
I think that the main argument he makes for Hebrews inclusion is that it has divine authorship. Of course, this isn't something that can be measured directly but Christians should be able to tell the difference. If any piece of writing truly is the word of God, then it is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12, ignoring the circular logic of quoting Hebrews here!) There is something about reading the Bible than reading anything else, so doesn't it seem reasonable that early Christians - confronted with many letters from various church leaders - would be able to see which ones were dual authored with God? I'm not sure that I made much sense, sorry 'bout that.
I thought that as an apostle, Paul could do pretty much whatever he wanted! Seriously, though, does he have to have been at the events written about to confirm that the text was divinely authored? Some of the things that he wrote about he'd never seen. (We could, of course, cheekily dodge the topic by saying that in 1 Timothy 5 both Paul and God are affirming Luke as Scripture - and God was there!)
Halfway though. This is fun, though! One minor quibble, the 397AD you've quoted is when the Council of Carthage (whoever they are) wrote their list of the canon, on the previous page it says we have this list from 367. That doesn't change your point, though. But while the "contents page" of the Bible wasn't written until then, I think the books themselves were widely available which is how we have such a good idea of what the originals say and where and how errors were introduced. Is it also possible that the early church knew which books were Scripture but didn't bother writing the list down? This would be similar to how Jesus' divinity was not officially voted on until Nicea in 325, but this wasn't when the doctrine was formed, it was just a clarification of what had always been taught.
I had a look in the index. For "faith", "works" and "righteousness" in James and Paul we'll have to wait until chapter 36.
Finally, you said that these arguments wouldn't have convinced you, if you didn't already agree with the conclusion. So can I ask what is it that has convinced you?
Tuesday, 2 January 2007
The Canon
There were some things you said here that I wasn't expecting but before I start to discuss as instructed, I'll throw up my initial thoughts from reading the chapter. "The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that belong in the Bible".
Until reading p55 I hadn't thought through how much of the Old Testament was written by people in the office of prophet. Now I have thought about it, it makes sense. After all, the words of the Old Testament are the voice and words of God and a prophet is the one who communicates God's words to the people so you would expect the Scriptures to have been written by God's prophets. I've been musing, and I can't think of any of the Old Testament that we know wasn't written by prophets. Am I wrong? I realise that if I'm right it's not proof that every word was prophet-written, but I'm curious. It's interesting that the Jews knew that the cessation of prophets meant that God wasn't really speaking any more. It's not surprising they were so eager to find the Prophet Moses had promised them - and a huge shame that so many missed him.
Grudem cites two examples of apostles refering to parts of the New Testament as 'Scripture', so giving their endorsment for it to be canonised. I was aware of the first (2 Peter 3:15-16, refering to Paul's letters), but not the second. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Pauls quotes Luke 10:7 ("the labourer deserves his wages") and refers to it as Scripture. It really is encouraging that Peter and Paul had the same view of these writings as the church does today.
Much of this chapter was interesting, but what struck me most was a sentance near the end. Grudem writes the (obvious, but in my case forgotten) reminder: "The ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authoriship, not human or ecclesiastical approval" (p68). The 66 books in the canon aren't Scripture because they were approved by the church, or even that they were written by the apostles. They're Scripture because they are, because they were written by God (through humans), because they are God's own voice and it is this rather than any human opinions which make them reliable and give them great power. Praise God that he has spoken to us in his word!
I had a couple of other thoughts but they'll fit better in my answer to what you wrote, so I'll stop this and start that.
Until reading p55 I hadn't thought through how much of the Old Testament was written by people in the office of prophet. Now I have thought about it, it makes sense. After all, the words of the Old Testament are the voice and words of God and a prophet is the one who communicates God's words to the people so you would expect the Scriptures to have been written by God's prophets. I've been musing, and I can't think of any of the Old Testament that we know wasn't written by prophets. Am I wrong? I realise that if I'm right it's not proof that every word was prophet-written, but I'm curious. It's interesting that the Jews knew that the cessation of prophets meant that God wasn't really speaking any more. It's not surprising they were so eager to find the Prophet Moses had promised them - and a huge shame that so many missed him.
Grudem cites two examples of apostles refering to parts of the New Testament as 'Scripture', so giving their endorsment for it to be canonised. I was aware of the first (2 Peter 3:15-16, refering to Paul's letters), but not the second. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Pauls quotes Luke 10:7 ("the labourer deserves his wages") and refers to it as Scripture. It really is encouraging that Peter and Paul had the same view of these writings as the church does today.
Much of this chapter was interesting, but what struck me most was a sentance near the end. Grudem writes the (obvious, but in my case forgotten) reminder: "The ultimate criterion of canonicity is divine authoriship, not human or ecclesiastical approval" (p68). The 66 books in the canon aren't Scripture because they were approved by the church, or even that they were written by the apostles. They're Scripture because they are, because they were written by God (through humans), because they are God's own voice and it is this rather than any human opinions which make them reliable and give them great power. Praise God that he has spoken to us in his word!
I had a couple of other thoughts but they'll fit better in my answer to what you wrote, so I'll stop this and start that.
The Canon of Scripture
While I agreed with the conclusion I wasn't overly convinced by some of the arguments put forward to support the claim that we have the right books in the canon (particularly in the New Testament).
On page 62, the basis for all but 5 books is stated as being written by apostles but it is acknowledged that this depends on accepting the arguments for the traditional view of authorship. For people who don't accept that there would be a problem!
The argument for Hebrews being in the canon seems to be based on it feeling right and for what it says about the 'majestic glory of Christ'. I absolutely agree that it is a great book but there doesn't seem to be a strong argument made for its inclusion here.
On page 63 it is stated that Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts. While he was qualified to talk about Acts it is unclear how Paul could have affirmed the authenticity of Luke as the events recorded there happened before Paul was a follower of Jesus.
I do like the argument made on page 65 that as God loves us and it is important to God for us to have his word then he would ensure that it is made available to us in its entirety. However, it does refer to God would not allow the church to be deprived of his word for almost 2000 years. However, on page 64 it is recognised that the earliest list available of the full canon is from 397AD. It is not clear to me that 400 years is significantly different than 2000 years in the timetable of God!
There is then the interesting claim on page 67 regarding resolving the apparent doctrinal differences between Paul and James in that it is necessary to understand that they used the terms "justification", "faith" & "works" in a different sense. However, no explanation is given regarding what these differences are.
As stated at the beginning of this post I do agree that the canon we have now is complete but do not think that if I hadn't started from that position that I would have been convinced by the arguments here.
Discuss!!
On page 62, the basis for all but 5 books is stated as being written by apostles but it is acknowledged that this depends on accepting the arguments for the traditional view of authorship. For people who don't accept that there would be a problem!
The argument for Hebrews being in the canon seems to be based on it feeling right and for what it says about the 'majestic glory of Christ'. I absolutely agree that it is a great book but there doesn't seem to be a strong argument made for its inclusion here.
On page 63 it is stated that Paul would have affirmed the authenticity of Luke and Acts. While he was qualified to talk about Acts it is unclear how Paul could have affirmed the authenticity of Luke as the events recorded there happened before Paul was a follower of Jesus.
I do like the argument made on page 65 that as God loves us and it is important to God for us to have his word then he would ensure that it is made available to us in its entirety. However, it does refer to God would not allow the church to be deprived of his word for almost 2000 years. However, on page 64 it is recognised that the earliest list available of the full canon is from 397AD. It is not clear to me that 400 years is significantly different than 2000 years in the timetable of God!
There is then the interesting claim on page 67 regarding resolving the apparent doctrinal differences between Paul and James in that it is necessary to understand that they used the terms "justification", "faith" & "works" in a different sense. However, no explanation is given regarding what these differences are.
As stated at the beginning of this post I do agree that the canon we have now is complete but do not think that if I hadn't started from that position that I would have been convinced by the arguments here.
Discuss!!
Hello, David!
There's really no need to thank me! See, it wasn't that hard really.
I think you're right on the importance of remembering the unity of doctrines and indeed the Scriptures. Politics and the end times are things I don't know much about either, it'll be fun when we get there. Don't worry about not knowing anything, it'll be good to hear what you're thinking.
Thanks for joining in - looking forward to the next one!
I think you're right on the importance of remembering the unity of doctrines and indeed the Scriptures. Politics and the end times are things I don't know much about either, it'll be fun when we get there. Don't worry about not knowing anything, it'll be good to hear what you're thinking.
Thanks for joining in - looking forward to the next one!
Hello
Hi. Yes it's me. I have finally got round to doing a post on the blog. Thank you Richard for forcing me! I don't really know what I have of value to say, since I don't know half as much about anything as either of you guys. Ask me again in a year!
But in answer to Richard's initial questions that he posed, I think there is value in teaching systematic theology and studying it in a dedicated way because without it it can become all to easy to see every different bit of doctrine or belief (or even biblical book or passage) as separate and unrelated. By seeing it all in together, it is possible to avoid this and we can see all of God's works and words and how they relate to one another.
With regards to the second question, i am looking forward in particular to the sections relating to Church politics and forms of Church (since it is something i have never really considered and have very narrow experience with) and later on at the chapters on the end times (as this is something i have never had any teaching on and know very little about, beyond the very basics.
I will try to contribute, but i don't know how much i have to say that is of interest
But in answer to Richard's initial questions that he posed, I think there is value in teaching systematic theology and studying it in a dedicated way because without it it can become all to easy to see every different bit of doctrine or belief (or even biblical book or passage) as separate and unrelated. By seeing it all in together, it is possible to avoid this and we can see all of God's works and words and how they relate to one another.
With regards to the second question, i am looking forward in particular to the sections relating to Church politics and forms of Church (since it is something i have never really considered and have very narrow experience with) and later on at the chapters on the end times (as this is something i have never had any teaching on and know very little about, beyond the very basics.
I will try to contribute, but i don't know how much i have to say that is of interest
Monday, 1 January 2007
How can we teach theology?
Dad, in response to your response to my question: how, practically, can we ensure that Christians have a clear view of things like "election and reprobation" or "death and the intermediate state" (to take a couple from your 'favourites' list) unless we do it systematically? I can't think of a way of doing it well other than setting aside some time and saying, now we're going to talk about this and see what the Bible teaches us about it. So while I wouldn't say that ST is superior, I don't see how we can have clear understanding of important doctrines without it.
I'm interested by your choice of which topics are interesting to you - we'll see what happens when we get there!
I'm interested by your choice of which topics are interesting to you - we'll see what happens when we get there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
