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!
Thursday, 15 February 2007
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
