Category Archives: Scripture

Our desire to subvert the text

02 Thursday Apr 2020

Posted by in Bibliology, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

In his essay, “God and the Bible,” in the volume The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures Peter F. Jensen, responds to proposition that the Scripture is a word about God. Or, he quotes Brunner, “The spoken word is an indirect revelation when it bears witness to the real revelation: Jesus Christ, the personal self-manifestation of God, Emmanuel.” To respond to this challenge, states the issue as whether the “classical position” that the words of Scripture are the word of God; or, is there a way in which we can, by means of the Spirit, come to Christ effectively bypassing the words in the book?

There is a profound temptation here to want not some words but a person. Indeed, when phrased in that way, the “classical position” sounds foolish and misguided. I will not recount his argument here, which is well-structured and persuasive. He effectively demonstrates that there is no gospel without holding fast to the “classical position.” I cannot do that argument justice without simply repeating what he wrote.

What do wish to underscore here is the nature of the temptation to go-around the text. The desire to go around the text seems to have two roots as referenced by Jensen. First, there is the matter of idolatry; an argument which he traces to Tyndale. Second, he locates the movement in a desire for autonomy.

Jensen notes that our forebearers sought for “godliness” by means of obedience (see page 494), while we moderns speak of “spirituality”. But a desire for “spirituality” can easily become a guise for autonomy. We are dependent creatures who must have a clear rule to be obedient. “ A human life lived without the rule of God would be like a game of tennis without a net.” (495).

But I would like to venture an observation on idolatry and the textual nature of Christianity. Idolatry is a desire for a god whom we can control; an object of technology and desire. The god created is a god whom conforms to my desire.

I am in place one. My desire is place two; but reality is place three. I use the god of my idolatry to coerce reality to conform to my present desire.

When one claims a spirituality which supersedes the text and goes-around the text, and does not need the text; then my desires will become the “prompting of the Spirit.” Getting what I want will be the will of Christ. It is the strategy which underlies so much doctrinal change (as if a vote of some denominational leaders had the power to rewrite the Bible).

Words are a brake on hazy thinking and deceitful desires. I am well-aware of the strategies to subvert a text and to torture words into saying what I like. That is it’s own conversation.

And yes, there can be difficult questions. But so little of the trouble in life comes from the difficult questions about the Bible.  The “you can make it say whatever you want” dodge is written by people who have no idea what the text says. That is merely a dodge for one who wants to ignore the text.

The words of the text stand athwart our desire to create our own god.  We have to play deceitfully with the words to justify our own deceitful desires. A “modern” stance which simply seeks a make-believe Jesus on the basis of a “Spirit” which is remarkably consistently with my personal inclinations at the moment (sometimes this shows up when a Christian embarks on a path of disobedience and justifies it on the basis that he feels “peace about it.”)

The pattern laid out in Scripture, from Adam on, is God speaks and we obey. Our obedience is bound up with both our knowledge of God and our love of God. Paul, in Romans writes of the “obedience of faith.” But, “such a piety of obedience clashes deeply with our Western contemporaries to promote human autonomy as the highest aspiration.” (493). And hence, the desire to subvert the text.

As for the entire book, highly recommended. This is a remarkably comprehensive work on the authority of Scripture at over 1200 pages; Jensen providing one of the many essays. Please do not confuse any limitations in my writing with the very fine work done by Jensen in his essay.

How the Spirit Gives Testimony to the Word

09 Sunday Feb 2020

Posted by in Herman Bavinck, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

But that must not be understood as if we blindly submit to a thing that is unknown to us. No; we are conscious that in Scripture we possess unassailable truth and feel that “the undoubted power of his divine majesty lives and breathes there,” a power by which we are drawn, knowingly and willingly, yet vitally and effectively, to obey him.60 Calvin knew that in this doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit he was not describing some private revelation but the experience of all believers.61 Nor was this testimony of the Holy Spirit isolated from the totality of the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers but integrally united with it. By it alone the entire church originates and exists. The entire application of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit; and the witness to Scripture is but one of many of his activities in the community of believers. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is not a source of new revelations but establishes believers in relation to the truth of God, which is completely contained in Scripture. It is he who makes faith a sure knowledge that excludes all doubt.

60 J. Calvin, Institutes, I.vii; Commentary on 2 Tim. 3:16. Ed. note: Bavinck again refers to the literature he cites in par. 21 in Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, which is given above in n. 58.

61 Ibid., I.vii.5. Erasmus also affirms that it is especially the Spirit of Christ who, by his secret working, communicates unwavering certainty to the human mind.” Cf. Martin Schulze, Calvins Jenseitschristemtum in seinem Verhältnisse zu den religiösen Schriften des Erasmus (Görlitz: Rudolf Dulfer, 1902), 54.

 Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 583–584.

The Spiritual Chymist, Mediation LVII, Upon the Bible

18 Friday May 2018

Posted by in Bibliology, Scripture, Uncategorized, William Spurstowe, William Spurstowe

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

From William Spurstowe, The Spiritual Chymist, 1666.

5372524524_82d0796498_o

(A detail from the Gutenberg Bible)

Upon the Bible

Quintillian [a Roman rhetorician who lived 1 century AD] who makes it a question why unlearned men in discourse seem oft times more free and copious than learned gives as the answer, That the one without either care or choice express whatsoever their present thoughts suggest to them. When the other are both careful what to say, and to dispose also their conceptions in due manner and order. 

If anything make this subject difficult to my meditation, it is not want but plenty which is so great; as that I must, like Bezaleel and Aholiab [the master craftsmen for the Tabernacle, who told Moses, “The people bring much more than enough for doing the work that the Lord has commanded us to do.” Exodus 36:5 (ESV)] be forced to lay aside much of that costly stuff which present itself to me.

And what to refuse or what to take in is no easy matter to resolve. It will, I am sensible, require and deserve also more exactness in choosing what to say, and what not to say, concerning its worth and excellency, and how to digest what is spoken that what is meet [fitting] for any to assume unto himself. 

I shall therefore account that I have attained my end, if I can but so employ my thoughts as to increase my veneration of this Book of God, which none can ever too much study or too highly prize; and with which to be well acquainted is not only the chief of duties but the best of delights and pleasures. What would be our condition in this world if we had not this blessed Book among us, would it not be like Adam’s which driven out of the Paradise and debarred from the Tree of Life?

Would it not be darker than Earth without the Sun? If the world were fuller of books than the heaven is of stars, and this only wanting [if there books and no Bible], there would no certain way and rule to Salvation. But if this alone were extant, it would enlighten the eyes and make wise the simple and guide their feet in paths of life.

True it is that for many years God made known himself by visions, dreams, oracles to persons of noted holiness that they might teach and instruct others. But it was while the church of God was of small growth and extent and the persons to whom God’s messages were concredited of unquestioned authority with the present age. 

But afterward the Lord spake to his church both by word and writing , the useful for revealing divine truths; and the other for recording of them, that when the canon was once completed all might appeal until ti, and none take liberty in going divine oracles to himself or of obtruding [forcing]  his fancies upon others.

And were there no other use of this Book of God than this, that it should be the standard for trial of all doctrines, it were to be highly prized for its worth; without which [without the Bible] the minds of men would be in a continual distraction through the multitude of enthusiasts that would be pretending commissions from heaven; none  knowing what to believe in point of faith or what to do in point of obedience or whereby to difference the good and evil spirit from each other. [1 John 4:1]

But this single benefit (though it can never enough be thankfully acknowledged to Go by us) is but as a clutter to the vintage, or as an ear of corn to the harvest, in respect of those things many blessings may be reaped from it. 

Does not Paul ascribe unto it a universal influence into the welfare of believers, when he enumerates so many noble ends for which all Scriptures is profitable? What is it that makes man wise to salvation? Is it not the Scripture? What is that instructs any in righteousness and makes him perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works? Is it not the Scripture? 

Is not this the only book by which God we come to understand the heart of God to us, and learn also the knowledge of our own hearts? Both which as they are the breasts of mysteries; so they are of all knowledge the best and fill the soul with more satisfaction than the most exact discovery of all created beings whatsoever.

What if a man could, like Solomon, speak of trees from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the Hyssop that grows in the wall; and of beasts, fowls, and fishes; and yet were wholly ignorant of his own heart, would not the light that is inhume be darkness? 

Or what if a man could resolve all those posing questions in which the Schoolman [university philosophers] have busied themselves concerning angels, and yet know nothing of the God of Angels; would he not become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal? [1 Cor. 13:1] 

Is the knowledge of these things the great end for which our understanding was given us? Or is it any further desirable or profitable than as it conduces to the knowledge of God? Does the rectitude of our actions, and the holiness of them, flow from the knowledge we have of any creature or from the knowledge of God? Is not his will the rule, and his glory the end of all that we do? And should we ever come to know what the good and acceptable will of God is but by his revealing it unto us? Which he has done most clearly in this blessed Book of his, the Scripture of Truth.

That which commends this Book and rendered it worthy of all acceptation is the rich discoveries it makes to us concerning so excellent a being as God, whom it acquaints us with in his nature, perfections, counsels and designs, in relation to the Eternal Salvation of man. It contains not anything that is mean or trivial; the matters in it are all of no less glory for any to behold than of weighty importance for all to know.

Do we not read in it with what majesty God gave forth his Sacred Law, when thunders, lightnings, dark clouds and burnings were used as heralds in the promulgation of it? And yet may we not again see the hidings of his power in the wonderful condescension of his goodness? How he does entreat, woo, and importune those whom he could with a frown or breath easily destroy; and pursue with the bowels [inner most being] of mercy, such whom eh might in justice leave and cast off forever? 

Are there in it precepts of exact purity that are as diamonds without flaws, and as fine gold without dross? 

In all other books, they are as the most current coins, that must have their alloys of baser metals. But in this [Book, the Bible] they [the things stated therein] resemble the author who is light in which there is no darkness [1 John 1:5]; and a sun in which there are no spots. 

Are there not in it promises of infinite value as well as goodness in which rewards are given not of debt, but of grace; and so such who have cause to be ashamed of their duties as well as their sins? Are there not in premonitions [here, foreshadows] of great faithfulness in which God fully declares to men what the issues of sin will be? 

And proclaims a Judgment to come in which the Judge will be impartial and the sentence most severe against the least offenses, as well as against the greatest. What is it that may teach us to serve God with cheerfulness; to trust him with confidence; to adhere to him with resolution in difficulties; to submit to his will with patience in the greatest extremities; that we may not be abundantly furnished with from this book. 

It alone is a perfect library, in which are presented those deep mysteries of the Gospel that Angels study and look into both with delight and wonder, being more desirous to pry into them then of perfect ability to understand them. They are such, that had they not been revealed could not have been known; and being revealed, can yet never be fully comprehended by any. 

Was it ever hear, that he was the Maker of all thing was made of a woman? That the Ancient of Days was not an hour old? That Eternal Life being to live? That he, to whose nature incomprehensibility does belong, should be enclosed in the narrow limits of the womb? Where can we read but in this Book that he who perfectly hates sin should condescend to take upon the similitude of sinful flesh? That he, who was the person injured by sin, should willingly be the sacrifice to expiate the guilt of it; and to die instead of sinners? 

Are not these such mysteries as are utter impossibility to reason? 

And at which, like Sarah, it laughs; rather than, with Abraham, entertain them with an holy reverence and joy when made known? Reason is busy in looking after demonstrations, and enquires how this can be and then scorns what it cannot fathom: 

But faith rests itself in the Revelations of God, and adores as a mystery what he discovers. Yea, it makes these mysteries, not only objects of its highest adoration, but the grounds of its sure comfort and confidence. From whence is it, that faith searches its security against sin, Satan, Death and Hell? 

That he who is their sacrifice through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God to purge their conscience from dead works to serve the Living God? [Heb. 9:14] That he who is their Advocate did raise himself form the dead and ascended into the highest heavens to make everlasting intercessions for them? 

Can then any depreciate this Book, or abate the least iota of that awful esteem which upon all accounts is due unto it and guiltless? Or can any neglect this Book as unworthy of their reading which God has thought worthy of his writings, without putting an affront upon God himself, whose image it bears as well as declares his commands? 

And yet I tremble to think how many anti-Scripturists there be, who have let fall both from their lips and pens such bold scorns as if Satan flood at their right hand to inspire them. It was open blasphemy and worthy that anti-Christian crew of Trent, to affirm That though the Scripture were not, yet a body of saving Divinity might be made out of the Divinity of the School. 

The profaneness of politician shall make his name to rot in perpetual stench, who never read the Bible but once, and said, it was the time he ever spent. And yet what are the fruits of his studies, but such as Gullies styles Scholica Nugalia, a few trifling commentaries and criticisms. 

More I could readily name of the same stamp that have presumed impiously to scoff at the revelations of God, as others at his providence, but who can take pleasure to rake in a dunghill that may enjoy the fragrance of Paradise. I shall therefore turn my thoughts from them, and, as having nothing to cast over their wickedness shall call my blood into my face and spread it as a vail in blushing for them, that should have blushed and been ashamed for themselves. 

But though the Word of God ceases not to be a reproach to them, yet I shall bind it as a crown unto me.

Though they reject the counsel of God against themselves, yet I shall make its testimonies my delight, and the men of my counsel, and shall make the prayers of the Psalmist to be my daily prayer, that God would open my eyes, that I may behold wonders that are contained in his law. [Psalm 119:18]

John Collins, “Earnestly Contend for the Faith”, Part 1

15 Tuesday May 2018

Posted by in Ecclesiology, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

John Collins, one of the Puritans who became unable to preach at the Great Ejectment (1662), delivered this sermon on Jude 3, “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” In that sermon he sets out the rule

Bring all doctrines that offered you to believe and all the practices that are put upon you to practice to the test of the Scriptures, to the Word of God. Try them there, whether they are to be retained or to be rejected. You will thus discover what is right and what is wrong; and you have on the best part of your armor by which you contend against error.

This rule sets a duty upon the Christian “in the pew”. One is not to blindly follow leadership, nor accept every doctrine or practice merely because it is delivered. Someone might ask, but what about “unity”. There is political unity and there is unity in Christ. The unity of the Spirit will be completely consistent with the Scripture. A unity founded upon something is not Christian unity and a Christian has no duty to preserve such unity (to take extreme examples as illustrations, the Nazis and Maoists have some serious “unity”; but it is a monstrous, evil unity. Criminals robbing a bank have unity. Unity is neither good nor bad except for the basis of the unity.)

He states the rule simply, “All that is written you must believe, and you must believe nothing but what is written.

How then would someone try to take me off from the basis for the unity of Spirit?  First, someone might say, “This is the practice of the ‘Church’.” As if the “Church” was an independent basis for the communication of God’s revelation. He then draws out the point:

No sober man will go against reason. No Christian will go against the Scripture; and no peaceable-minded man will go against the church. But then the church must shine by a Scripture-light. If that be a rule, it must be ruled by the Scripture. The church’s power is in not authoritative, as to give laws against the laws of Christ; it only ministerial. We believe the Scripture for itself, and not because of the church; we receive the Scripture by the church. Therefore, when we set up the name of a church, let us see whether that church walks in the way of Christ, whether she is his spouse or no, whether she acts according to his institutions, whether they bring his light, yea or no; then submit. For it is not what a church practices but what it is warranted to practice; not what it holds for truth, but what it is warranted to hold for truth.

This can be very deceptive — it is not the fact that the church professes such a thing: a group called a ‘church’ may profess and do all sorts of things. The Christian ‘church’ has done and professed all sorts of things that have no warrant in Scripture (and which are rejected by other Christian ‘churches’. The Scripture is only warrant for the Church’s doctrine and practice.

He then states two more deceptions. One is the claim, that this is the way our ‘fathers’ worshipped. This tack is not so prevalent in the West now, because we can easily move about.

The final one is actually a means which is very common in our culture, “this is the way the people now do it.” This is not only a matter of what other ‘churches’ profess or do — although such is an argument. We have gone a step further than Collins’ time, because now the church will take on believes and practices based upon the opinion of those who are not even claiming to be Christian.

(From Sermons of the Great Ejectment, Banner of Truth. An excellent volume; get it.)

The Spiritual Chymist, Meditation LV

21 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Exegeting the Heart, law, Scripture, Uncategorized, William Spurstowe, William Spurstowe

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

MEDITATION LV
Upon a Looking Glass

mirror

 

What is that which commends this glass? Is it the pearl and other precious stones that the frame is set in, is richly decked and enameled? Or is the impartial and just representation that it makes according to the face everyone who beholds himself bring unto it? Surely the ornaments are wholly foreign and contributing no more to its real worth than the case does onto the goodness of the wine into which it is put; or the richness of the plate [silver] to the cordial in which it is administered?

That for which the glass is to be esteemed is the true and genuine resemblance it makes of the object which is seen in it, when it neither flatters the face by giving any false beauty to it, nor yet injures it by detract ought [anything] from it.

To slight [think less than proper of] then or neglect the glass for the meanness [lowliness, lack of ornaments] of its case, and to value it only for its gaiety [beauty, appearance] is no better than the folly of children or the brutish ignorance of those who judge a book by its cover and not by the learning that is in it.

For quarreling with a glass for its returning a most exact and absolute likeness of the face that is seen in it is to despise it for its excellency and come from no other ground than a conscious of some guilt [here, a fault, not necessarily a moral failing].

Is it not for this very respect that beautiful persons both prize it and use it happily too much? It being the only means whereby they come to be acquainted with their own comeliness [beauty] and to understand what it is that allures the hearts and eyes of all toward them.

Who then but those who features nature has drawn with a coal rather than a pencil, or whom age and sickness have robbed them of what they formerly prided themselves in, shun the familiar use of it [use a mirror regularly]. Or be angry when they look into it, as if it upbraided them [rebuked them], rather than resemble them.

Phyrnethe famous harlot throws passionately away her glass saying, As I am, I will not; as I was, I cannot behold myself. And yet is this not anger against the glass causeless [without a reason]? Does it make gray hears upon the head? Or the pock-marks and wrinkles upon the face? Or does it discovery only what age and disease have done? And let them see what they cannot conceal from others?

Now what does all this argue but an averseness in men to understood the truth of their condition and a willingness through self-flattery to deceive themselves in thinking of what ever they have above what is meet [appropriate, fitting]? Great must be the impatience against truth, when the silent elections of the glass that vanish as soon as it is turned from, kindle such dislikes in the breast as to make it cast them from them [one anger throwing the mirror] for doing only the same to them which it does to others.

Here methinks [I think] we may find the ground that carnal men [one who is in the flesh, and does not have the Spirit of God] are offended at the Word, both in putting scorn and contempt upon it by the low and mean [base, foul] thoughts they have of it; or else by the anger they express against it, in throwing this blessed mirror from them in as great, though not so good, a heat as Moses did the tables which he brake beneath [at the foot of] the Mount [Ex. 32:19].

Some pick a quarrel with the plainness of the Word, as if it wholly wanted [lacked] those embroideries of wit and art that other writings and discourses abound with, and had none of those quaint expressions that might win the affections of them that converse [here, read] with it.

But is not this to make such use of the Word as young children do the glass, more to behold the babies in their own eyes, than to make any observance of themselves.

Is the Word writ or preached to have its reflections upon the fancy [vain imagination] or upon the conscience? Is it to inform only the head or reform the heart? If the inward man be the proper subject of it, the simplicity of conduces to that great end than the contemperation [accommodation] of it with humane mixtures [adding or mixing in something which would make it accommodating to “polite” speech].

It is not the painted but crystal glass by which the object is best discerned.

Others again are not a little displeased with the Law or the Word of God, because when they look into it both their persons and their sins are represented in a far differing manner from those conceptions they ever had of one or the other. In their own eyes, they are as Absaloms without any blemish; but in this glass they are as deformed lepers and spread with a uniform uncleanness: and who can bear it to see himself thus suddenly transformed into a monster?

Now their sins which they judged to be as little as the motes [a mote is a speck of dust] in sunbeams, appear in amazing dimensions, and it is to them not a looking glass but a magnifying glass. Thoughts of the heart, glances of the eye, words of the lips, irruptions of the passions are all censured by it as deserving death, and there is nothing can escape it, which as a rule it will not guide or as a judge condemn.

O how irksome this must needs be to carnal and unregenerate men who abound with self-flattery and presumptions of their own innocence and righteousness who can as with little patience endure the convincing power of the Word as sore eyes the severe searchings of the light.

We need not wonder that the Word has so many adversaries who take part with Nature against Grace, setting their works on wits by distinctions and blended interpretations to make it as a glass breathed and blown upon, which yields nothing but dim and imperfect reflections.

Is there anything that the Word does more clearly assert than the loathsome condition of Man’s nature with which comes into the world? Is it not expressed by the filthiness of the birth every child is encompassed with when it breaks forth from the womb? Is it not resembled to the rottenness and stench of the grave into which Man is resolved when he is said to be dead in sins and trespasses?

And yet how many when they view themselves in this glass give out to the world that they can see no such thing?

Celestius of old [a follower of the heretic Pelagius, 5th century] thought the original sin was matter [of the substance] of dispute rather than faith. And some have been so bold of late as to call it [original sin] Austin’s figment [a figment of Augustine’s imagination].

But the more injurious to this divine mirror of truth, the more it behooves every good Christian to be studious in vindicating it from the scorns of such as despise it for its simplicity [clarity] and from the impieties of others that seek to corrupt its purity; and to show for what cause others hate it, he [the Christian] most affectionately loves and prizes it.

Thy Word is very pure, says David, therefore thy servant loves it. [Ps. 119:140]. Can you do God better service, while you honor his Word which he has magnified above all his Name? [Ps. 138:2] Or can you do yourselves more right than to judge yourselves by that which is so pure that it can neither deceived nor be deceived.

What though it present you with sad spectacle of your sins, which may justly fill you with shame and self-abhorrence; does it not also show you your Savior, who is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. And cannot this joyful sight raise you more than the other sight can cast you down?

O fear not to see your sin, when you may at the same time behold your Savior. A mourning heart is the best preparation for a spiritual joy, and serves to intend the height of it, as dark colors do set off the gold that is laid upon them.

Give me, therefore, O Lord a broken and relenting heart
That sin may be my sorrow
And Christ may be my joy;
Let my tears drop from the eyes of faith
That I may not mourn without hope
Nor yet rejoice without trembling.
Let me see my sins in the glass of the Law
To humble me,
And my Savior in the glass of the Gospel
To comfort me
Yea, let me with open so behold his glory
As to be changed into the same image
From glory to glory.

Reading Scriptural Narrative

24 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by in Hermeneutics, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

I am working through Biblical Doctrine by MacArthur and Mayhue. I am going to have a criticism of a single sentence, so I should put this into context. The work over all is quite good. The greatest strength of the work lies with the marshaling of biblical evidence.  When it sets forth a doctrine, it typically sets forth the universe of Scriptural support. For example, on page 340, they list 27 instances of how the Holy Spirits ministers to the people of God (He adopts, baptizes, bears witness, call to ministry, convicts, empowers, et cetera). The book is filled with such lists and charts. On this particular point, it is exceptionally good.

A second aspect of the work which I appreciate is that it does not require a great deal of technical background: the text avoids theological terms and prefers to explain the doctrine and use relative simple English terms. This makes the book useful for those coming to theology for the first time as a discipline.

In short, the book is a very good introductory systematic theology.

Now to pick on a sentence. This sentence scraps a particular concern of mine: the common place lack of training in literature and language for Bible teachers and theologians. The Bible is primarily a book of stories and poems. However, most Western contemporary theological training tries to reduce the entire Scripture to a mass of bare propositions akin to blueprints or a shopping list. This is wrong for a million reasons — but that is another topic.

Anyway, here is my concern:

On page 356, a rule of interpretation is stated as follows:

Use teaching (didactic) sections of Scripture, not historical (narrative) portions to determine what is prescriptive rather than what is merely descriptive —what is exceptional compared to what should be considered normative.

First, the bare fact of something having had happened tells us very little beyond that it had happened. We need to ask other questions to make sense of the bare fact: we need context to understand a historical event. They should have written something like, “there are different hermeneutical principles for deriving application from narrative than for didactic passages.”

Our life comes to us as narrative: we see the events in our life as coming from some context and going in a particular direction. Therefore, anyone who merely points at some bare fact and then draws a “random” conclusion proves little more than there are an infinite number of lines which can be drawn through any point.

For example, George Washington was president of the United States. Therefore, I conclude that am the president — or anyone named George can be can be president — or only persons named George can be president, et cetera. Or only persons who were friends with people who knew George Washington — or whatever crazy rule. The proper context is the legal context of the United States Constitution which creates the basis for one becoming president.

I read the United States went to war with England in 1812, therefore, I conclude that England is the enemy of America. I prove that point by pointing to the Revolutionary War. Then someone points to World War I & II.

This sort of naive reading of narrative is seen by members of the Watchtower Society who will not have birthday parties, because Herod — a bad man — had a birthday party. Therefore, birthday parties are bad. Herod also ate, drank, slept, married.

The question being considered on page 356 is whether all believers must speak with tongues to be saved. Some will argue that because there were instances of tongue speaking recorded in Acts, that such is proof that all believers must speak in tongues. That sort of poor reading does not mean the narrative is ambiguous, faulty or otherwise deficient. It merely means that one has to read a narrative in the manner proper for reading narratives.

The trouble with “we all must speak in tongues” is not that one has used narrative to determine a doctrine. Rather, the trouble is that one has read the narrative poorly. The proper context for the narrative is all of Acts — and all of the New Testament, and all of the Scripture. Part of the narrative context are the epistles.

Moreover, the epistles must be understood by referring back to the narrative portions of Scripture: each of the texts helps make sense of the other texts.

Second, the rule as stated makes a point about reading narrative: it distinguishes between exception and normative: That is something gleaned from reading the narrative. Herod celebrating his birthday does not mean that a two year should not eat cake on his birthday. That would be an example of very poor reading.

Third, the authors contradict this rule repeatedly in this very book because they use narrative to prove up doctrine.

For example, on page 366, they consider the question of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old Testament. After a review of the narrative they write:

The major characteristics of indwelling in the Old Testament can be summarize as follows:
Infrequent
Involving selected leaders in Israel only
Temporary
An empowerment for service

Page 367. They read the narrative and deduced a doctrinal point. This is an appropriate reading of narrative.

Or, on page 384, they are considering the question of whether miracles are normative and continuing. On previous pages, they cited to historical precedent and church historians. Looking to the Bible they write

There is no single, explicitly clear biblical statement that specifies whether miracles through men and temporary gifts ceased with the apostles or continued, but if one consults the whole counsel of God, one will find the answer.

They then engage in a reading of the explicit and implicit narrative of the New Testament.

What they really mean to say is that one must read the Scripture with some care. For example, when reading narrative, one cannot simply conclude that because a good man has done X that all men must do X to be good (how many men will offer their son as a sacrifice, ascend Mt. Sinai or bury a linen belt?).No can one conclude that because God did X for a good man in the past means that God will do so of all good men in the future (how many men have been fed by ravens?). Such readings demonstrate foolishness: the fault lies in the reader not in the text.

We can only assume that such people do not go about the world concluding that because a police man has a light bar and gun that they should do the same thing.

One’s reading of the narratives must be consistent with all of the Bible. Plucking an isolated text and drawing a conclusion is foolish and lazy.

Infallibility and Inerrancy in the 17th Century

21 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Bibliology, Scripture, Thomas Goodwin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

There is a contention that “inerrancy” is a bit of a new doctrine (something post-Hodge and Warfield) and is thus a bit of an invention:

The CSBI [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] goes on the defensive in article 16 when it affirms that inerrancy “has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history” and denies that it “is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.” There is a grain of truth here, but some palpable problems as well. First, Christian believers over the course of history have repeatedly affirmed that the Holy Scriptures come from God, they are to be read and studied in the churches, they are the inscripturated form of the rule of faith, they emit divine authority, they are without falsehood, and they are true and trustworthy. 8 However, to insist that the CSBI understanding of inerrancy is and always has been normative in church history is a bit of a stretch.

Michael Bird, “Inerrany is not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan (2013-12-10) Kindle Locations 2448-2449. In response, I would like to note the following use of “infallibility” and “unerringness” (inerrancy) from the 17th Century Puritan Thomas Goodwin:

There is a contention that “inerrancy” is a bit of a new doctrine (something post-Hodge and Warfield) and is thus a bit of an invention:

The CSBI [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] goes on the defensive in article 16 when it affirms that inerrancy “has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history” and denies that it “is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.” There is a grain of truth here, but some palpable problems as well. First, Christian believers over the course of history have repeatedly affirmed that the Holy Scriptures come from God, they are to be read and studied in the churches, they are the inscripturated form of the rule of faith, they emit divine authority, they are without falsehood, and they are true and trustworthy. 8 However, to insist that the CSBI understanding of inerrancy is and always has been normative in church history is a bit of a stretch.

Michael Bird, “Inerrany is not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan (2013-12-10) Kindle Locations 2448-2449. In response, I would like to note the following use of “infallibility” and “unerringness” (inerrancy) from the 17th Century Puritan Thomas Goodwin:

Apostleship was an office extraordinary in the Church of God, appointed for a time for the first rearing and governing of the Church of the New Testament, and to deliver the faith which was about wants to be given to the Saints (as Jude speaks), and the apostles are therefore entitled the foundation the church is built on, Eph. ii. 20; which office, accordingly, had many extraordinary privileges annexed to it, suited (as all the callings by God and his institutions are) to attain that and which was so extraordinary–as, namely, unlimitedness of commission to teach all nations, Matt. xxvviii.19. They likewise had an infallibility and unerringness, this, whether in their preaching or writing (2 Cor. i. ver. 13 and 18 compared), which was absolutely necessary for them to have, seeing they were to lay the foundation for all ages, although in their personal walking’s they might her, as Peter did, Gal. ii. 10.

Thomas Goodwin, “Exposition of Ephesians 1”, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Volume 1,(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 5.

Thomas Goodwin, “Exposition of Ephesians 1”, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Volume 1,(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 5.

James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, Lecture One

09 Thursday Feb 2017

Posted by in Apologetics, Christology, Incarnation, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

jamesorrprofile

The work from 1907 consists of the transcript s of “Lectures Delivered Under the Auspices of the Bible Teachers’ Training School New York, April 1907.” Dr. Orr was a theology professor in Scotland and was a leading member in the production of The Fundamentals.

In these lectures, Dr. Orr addresses the question of whether the Bible truly does support the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin. The question of the Virgin Birth was becoming quite common in center theological circles at the time. Orr first sets forth the case against the doctrine in a fair (even compelling) summary:

The narratives of the miraculous birth, we are told, are found only in the introductory chapters of two of our Gospels— Matthew and Luke— and are evidently there of a secondary character. The rest of the New Testament is absolutely silent on the subject. Mark, the oldest Gospel, and John, the latest, know nothing of it. Matthew and Luke themselves contain no further reference to the mysterious fact related in their commencement, but mention circumstances which seem irreconcilable with it. Their own narratives are contradictory, and, in their miraculous traits, bear clear marks of legendary origin. All the Gospels speak freely of Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary. The Virgin Birth formed no part of the oldest Apostolic tradition, and had no place in the earliest Christian preaching,as exhibited in the Book of Acts. The Epistles show a like ignorance of this profound mystery. Paul shows no acquaintance with it, and uses language which seems to exclude it, as when he speaks of Jesus as”of the seed of David.”1 Peter,John,theEpistle to the Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, all ignore it. If thousands were brought to faith in Jesus as the divine Redeemer in this earliest period, it was without reference to this belief. There is no proof that the belief in general in the Christian Church before the second century. (pages 7-8).

These series of seemingly confirmed “facts” set the agenda for the remainder of the book. Orr asks, “Suppose, then, it can be shown that the evidence is not what is alleged in the statements above given, but that in many respects the truth is early the reverse” (p. 10).

Orr then proceed to explain what he will argue. First, he will not take time to prove that a miracle can happen (after all, that is the point of a miracle!):  “H o w great the intellectual confidence of any man who undertakes a priori to define what are and are not possibilities to such a Being in His relations to the universe He has made!” (p. 13).

Second, since Orr is confronting professing Christians in this work (this is not an apologetic to unbelievers), “It would be folly to argue for the supernatural birth of Christ with those who take naturalistic view; for, to minds that can reject all other evidence in the Gospel for Christ’s supernatural claims, such reasonings would be of no avail.” (p. 15).

What he will deal with are those who claim that the Virgin Birth of Christ can be rejected without rejecting the remainder of Christianity (or at least being in conflict with oneself):

It is here that the position of those who accept the fact of the Virgin Birth, but deny its essential connection with the other truths about our Lord’s Person appears to me illogical and untenable. The one thing certain is:either our Lord was born of a Virgin,or He was not. If He was not, as I say, the question falls: there is an end of it. But if He was— and I deal at present with those who profess this as their own belief— if this was the way in which God did bring the Only-Begotten into the world— then it cannot but be that it has a vital con nection with the Incarnation as it actually happened, and we cannot doubt, in that event, that it is a fact of great importance for us to know. In any case,we are not at liberty summarily to dismiss the testimony of the Gospels, or relegate the fact they attest to the class of ” open questions,” simply because we do not happen to think it is important.(p. 23)

It is Orr’s contention on this point that the Virgin Birth is crucial to the doctrine of the Incarnation — a necessary relationship stands between the two doctrines (even if the Virgin Birth is not the foundation of the doctrine of the Incarnation).

The Spiritual Chymist: Upon the Bucket and the Wheel

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Bibliology, Scripture, Uncategorized, William Spurstowe, William Spurstowe

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

William Spurstowe, 1666:  MEDITATION XXXIX
Upon the Bucket and the Wheel

14598163079_59181a86ae_o

The saying of Democritus which he spoke concerning the philosophical truth that it did you hide itself and take up it’s about in and deep well may much more be affirmative theological truth when the whole doctrine of the gospel is called the mystery of Christ and the great mystery of godliness that there should be three distinct persons in one essence [the Trinity] and two distinct natures and one person [the Incarnation]. That virginity should conceive, Eternity be born; immortality die and mortality rise from death to life. Are not these, and many more of the like intricacies, unparalleled mysteries? Maybe not justly say, As the Samaritan woman did to our savior when he asked water of her, the well is deep, and who can descend into it, or fathom it?

And yet such is the pride and arrogance he of many men, as that, not contending themselves with the simplicity of believing, many make reason the sole standard where by to measure both the principles and conclusions of faith — for which it [reason] is is unapt as the weak of a bat hold the sun when it shines in its full strength; or the bill of a small bird to receive the ocean.

These high mysteries are not to be scanned, but to be believed; the knowledge and certainty of which does not arise from the evidence of reason from the revelation made of them in the Holy Scriptures; the mouth of God — who is truth itself and cannot lie, has spoken them, and therefore it cannot be otherwise.

But must then reason be wholly shut out as a useless thing in the Christian religion, are must it be confined to the agenda matters of duty and morality, In which you cannot be denied to be both of necessity and constant use? Surely even the creeds, also the doctrines and points which are properly of the faith, do not refuse to sober use of reason, so it be employed as a handmaid and not as mistress.

I have therefore thought that faith is as the bucket, which can best to send you this deep well of mystery and that reason is as the wheel, which stands ever the mouth of it, and keeps always its certain and fixed distance: but yet by its motion is instrumental both to let down the bucket and also to draw up again.

Faith discovers the deep things of God, then reason teaches us to submit ourselves and it to the obedience of faith that so it is. But never becomes more foolish and dangerous then when it busies itself and inquiries, and makes Nicodemus question, How can these things be? Then it turns giddy and loses itself in distracted and motions.

Alas, how unlike the ways and councils of God if they were no other but such as the wisest of men could trace out? How little glory with faith also give to God, if it did not pour forth its strength in asserting his power to affect greater things than can fall within the compass of natural disquisition? Yea, how could the Gospel be acquitted of the Jews stumbling at it, as dishonorable to their law? And the Gentiles derided as absurd in their philosophy, if that reason must be the measure of its mysteries?

Nature is so far from finding out what the gospel discovers, as that he cannot yield on to it, when it is revealed without a spirit of faith to assist it.

Be wise therefore, oh Christians, and set the bounds to your reason, beyond which it may not pass: as Moses did to the Israelites, while faith descends into the deeps of Gospel Mysteries, which angels with stretched out next have a more desire to pry into than ability perfectly to understand.

Now the boundary of reason is, confer and infer: to confer one scripture with another; and to infer conclusions, and to decide instructions thence, buy a clear logical discourse. But if you go further to gays, it may justly fear to be smitten of God, and like the pioneer or bold miner who digs into far for his rich vein of ore meet with a damp which chokes him.

My prayer therefore Shelby that of the apostles to Christ
Adde nobis fidem: Lord Increase our faith.

For if my faith do not exceed my reason, though advanced as high as a pitch as her Solomon had, yet might I well be numbered among those, whom St. Peter said are blind and cannot see far off.