• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: P.T. Forsyth

P.T. Forsyth, Three Ways of Reading the Bible

23 Wednesday Sep 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Hermeneutics, P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

hermeneutics, P.T. Forsyth, Reading the Bible

The man who is exploiting God for the purposes of his own soul or for the race, has in the long run a different religion from the man who is putting his own soul and race absolutely at the disposal of the will of God in Jesus Christ.

P.T. Forsyth in his book, The Work of Christ, has this interesting discussion on reading the Bible.

Supposing, then, we return to the Bible. Supposing that the Church did–as I think it must do if it is not going to collapse; certainly the Free Churches must– supposing we return to the Bible, there are three ways of reading the Bible. The first way asks, What did the Bible say? The second way asks, What can I make the Bible say? The third way asks, What does God say in the Bible?


As to the first question, Forsyth defines this in terms of what we expect from a commentary or a seminary lecture: “The first way is, with the aid of these magnificent scholars, to discover the true historic sense of the Bible.” What the Bible says is a matter of grammatical and historical analysis.
But such information is purely information. Discerning what the text “means” could be interesting in the sense of deciphering an ancient Hittite text; it could be useful for some purpose, such as understanding. But knowing the “meaning” cannot be the end of Bible reading.

Forsyth is interesting in the way which the text has an affect beyond the bare conveyance of information. When he asks “What can I make the Bible say?” he is not attacking the objective meaning of words. Rather, he is concerned with the subjective effect of the words.
To rephrase the question, he is concerned more with “What can I make the Bible do to me?” Or perhaps what does the Bible say to me.
This takes a bit of thinking. One could argue that the words themselves have no definite meaning, as does Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass:

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’


That often does happen in Bible reading; far more often than we may imagine. When we come to a work like “grace” or “love” it is very common to pour our expectations and meanings into these concepts make the words mean whatever we want the words to mean. The Bible deals with such tendencies by providing a number of contexts in which the word is used so that we come to understand what the word means. God’s “love” plainly does not mean that God protects us from all trials. The word “faith” or “belief” (which is the same word in Greek) is used in a number of contexts through the Gospel of John so we begin to understand the precise nuance of the word in John’s Gospel.


So, making the text mean something “against its will” is not all that uncommon, even among those who would never think doing such a thing. Rather, it is an easier fault to commit than imagine.


Forsyth’s concern is with the subjective application of text: what does this objective text have to do with me? Let’s take a non-biblical example Someone says, “Shut the door.” Is that a command for me to shut that particular door? Is it the punchline of a joke and I’m supposed to laugh? The words are clear, but what the word does to me depend upon subjective elements within me.


Forsyth cautions against any sort of reading which reduces the objectivity of the text:


Now the grand value of the Bible is just the other thing–its objectivity. The first thing is not how I feel, but it is, How does God feel, and what has God said or done for my soul? When we get to real close quarters with that our feeling and response will look after itself. Do not tell people how they ought to feel towards Christ. That is useless. It is just what they ought that they cannot do. Preach a Christ that will make them feel as they ought. That is objective preaching. The tendency and fashion of the present moment is all in the direction of subjectivity.


That objective text then has a subjective effect:
We allow the Spirit of God to suggest to us whatever lessons or ideas He thinks fit out of the words that are under our eyes. We read the Bible not for correct or historic knowledge, but for religious and spiritual purposes, for our own private and personal needs. That is, of course, a perfectly legitimate thing– indeed, it is quite necessary.

He cautions that there are dangers here: we must not unhinge the objective text and the subjective effect. The text is a real objective fact; but that objective fact has an actual affect upon the reader.
One has the experience of only understanding certain Psalms until one has experienced that trial, that suffering, that ache, or slander. The words did not change in their objective meaning, but since I have changed, the words have changed.

And finally Forsyth says we should concern ourselves what God is up to in the text:
The third way of reading the Bible is reading it to discover the purpose and thought of God, whether it immediately edify us or whether it do not. If we did actually become aware of the will and thought of God it would edify us as nothing else could.


He then makes this brilliant observation:
I read a fine sentence the other day which puts in a condensed form what I have often preached about as the symptom of the present age: “Instead of placing themselves at the service of God most people want a God who is at their service.” These two tendencies represent in the end two different religions. The man who is exploiting God for the purposes of his own soul or for the race, has in the long run a different religion from the man who is putting his own soul and race absolutely at the disposal of the will of God in Jesus Christ.

The Difference Between God’s Sacrifice and Man’s (Forsyth)

19 Sunday Jul 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in P. T. Forsyth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anthropology, christology, Death of Christ, P.T. Forsyth, Sacrifice, shame

In his essay, “The Difference Between God’s Sacrifice and Man’s,” P.T. Forsyth compares the death of Christ – which was a loss of his life to save others – with human heroism: again, one person giving his life to save the life of others. As he puts it, “How does man’s noblest work differ from Christ’s great work? (P.T. Forsythy, The Work of Christ, (London, Hodder and Stoughton, N.D.), 10.)

The work of a hero thrills us, we are attracted to it.  We don’t need to learn to be inspired by heroic action, it comes by nature. But the same does not happen when we consider the death of Christ as it is in the Bible (perhaps one can re-work his death into a heroic political statement, but that is a completely different thing). 

The death of Christ cannot be set up for admiration, which we then leave and go onto other things. First, the death of Christ must create in us the ability to even comprehend what is happening:

Christ’s was a death on behalf of people within whom the power of responding had to be created. (15)…

The death of Christ had not simply to touch like heroism, but it had to redeem us into power of feeling its own worth. Christ had to save us from what we were too far gone to feel. (18)

Thus, to begin to understand and have a suitable response to the death of Christ is something we must acquire as a result of the death of Christ. 

Second, the death was not merely an exemplar, it is transformative: 

That death had to make new men of us….The death of Christ had to with our sin and not with our sluggishness. It had to deal with our active hostility, and not simply with the passive dullness of our hearts. (19)

He then proposes a test for whether one has begun to understand what is happening in the death of Christ: how do you respond to being told that someone had to die on your behalf because  you were dead in trespass and sin:

If the impression Christ makes upon you is to leave you more satisfied with yourself for being able to respond, He has to get a great deal nearer to you yet….The great deep classic cases of Christian experience bear testimony to that. Christ and His Cross come nearer and near, we do not realize what we owe Him until we realize that He has plucked us from the fearful pit, the miry clay, and set us upon a rock of God’s own founding. (23)

What then does it cost us to rightly understand what Christ has done?

The meaning of Christ’s death rouses our shame, self-contempt, and repentance. And we resent being made to repent. A great many people are afraid to come too near to anything that does that for them. That is a frequent reason for not going to church. (23)

A hero’s work raises in a thrill, they think well of human beings. But Christ’s death, which is certainly heroic, does the opposite – when it is rightly understood. When we see that death, we experience shame in ourselves. As Forsyth puts, this death calls for “the tribute of yourself and your shame.” (22)

What then is the distinction between the hero and Christ?

The sacrifice of the Cross was not man in Christ pleasing God; it was God in Christ, reconciling man, and in a certain sense, reconciling Himself. My point at this moment is that the Cross of Christ was Christ reconciling man. It not heroic man dying for a beloved and honored God. (25)

Therefore, the death of Christ – when put into the correct frame – is not attractive because it first costs us shame to understand. This death is not admirable: rather it is condemning of me. Now if my understanding of the death breaks me down and brings me to repentance, it does me infinite good. But it can never be rightly understood until I take hold of the shame it costs me. 

“The Church of Christ is the greatest and finest product of human history”

07 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in Ecclesiology, P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Church, Ecclesiology, P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ

 

We believe in the Holy Catholic Church. My contention would be that, apart from such a position as I desire to bring to your notice–some real apostolic belief in the real work of Jesus Christ–apart from that no Church can continue to exist. That is the point of view which I take at the outset. The Church is precious, not in itself, but because of God’s purpose with it. It is there because of what God has done for it. It is there, more particularly, because of what Christ has done, and done in history. It is there solely to serve the Gospel.

It is impossible not to observe at the present day that the Church is under a cloud. You cannot take any division of it, in any country of the world, without feeling that that
is so. Therefore I will begin by making quite a bold statement; and I should be quite prepared, given time and opportunity, to devote a whole week to making it good. The statement is that the Church of Christ is the greatest and finest product of human history. It is the greatest thing in the universe. That is in complete defiance of the general view and tendency of society at the present moment. I say the Church is the greatest and finest product of human history; because it is not really a product of human history, but the product of the Holy Spirit within history. It stands for the new creation, the New Humanity, and it has that in trust.

P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ

Chapter one

The Church is Precious

17 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Ecclesiology, P.T. Forsyth, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ecclesiology, P.T. Forsyth

The Church is precious, not in itself, but because of God’s purpose with it. It is there because of what God has done for it. It is there, more particularly, because of Christ has done, and done in history. It is there solely to serve the Gospel.

P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ (Hodder and Stoughton, New York, n.d.), p. 4

The Greatest and Finest Product of Human History

02 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Ecclesiology, P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Pneumatology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ecclesiology, Holy Spirit, P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ

My contention would be that, apart from such a position as I desire to bring to your notice—some real apostolic belief in the real work of Jesus Christ—apart from that no Church can continue to exist. That is the point of view which I take at the outset. The Church is precious, not in itself, but because of God’s purpose with it. It is there because of what God has done for it. It is there, more particularly, because of what Christ has done, and done in history. It is there solely to serve the Gospel

It is impossible not to observe at the present day that the Church is under a cloud. You cannot take any division of it, in any country of the world, without feeling that that is so. Therefore I will begin by making quite a bold statement; and I should be quite prepared, given time and opportunity, to devote a whole week to making it good. The statement is that the Church of Christ is the greatest and finest product of human history. It is the greatest thing in the universe. That is in complete defiance of the general view and tendency of society at the present moment. I say the Church is the greatest and finest product of human history; because it is not really a product of human history, but the product of the Holy Spirit within history. It stands for the new creation, the New Humanity, and it has that in trust.

 

P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ.

What is the use of captains who …

29 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Captains, Entertainment, P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and Modern Mind, Preaching

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and Modern Mind, “The Preacher and the Age”

Moreover, let the religious public at least have some consideration for its ministry, which it irritates and debases by trivial ethics, and the impatient demand for short sermons and long “socials.” Let it respect the dignity of the ministry. Let it cease to degrade the ministry into a competitor for public notice, a caterer for public comfort, and a mere waiter upon social convenience or religious decency. Let it make greater demands on the pulpit for power, and grasp, and range, and penetration, and reality. Let it encourage the ministry to do more justice to the mighty matter of the Bible and its burthen, and not only to its beauty, its charm, its sentiment, or its precepts. Let it come in aid to protect the pulpit from that curse of petty sentiment which grows upon the Church, which rolls up from the pew into the pulpit, and from the pulpit rolls down upon the pew in a warm and soaking mist.

There is an element in the preacher’s eloquence which only the audience can give. Let it do so by being, not less exacting but more—only, exacting on the great right things. Let it realize that for true eloquence there must be great matter, both in him who speaks and in those who hear. The greatest eloquence is not that of the man but of the theme.

There is no such supporter of a minister as the man who, he knows, studies the Bible with as much earnestness as himself, if with fewer facilities. Such supporters add immeasurably to the staying power of a Church. If our people are experts of the Bible we shah have none of the rude remarks of philanthropy about the time the minister wastes on theology.

I say that, in the present state of the Church, and certainly for the sake of its pulpit, its ministers, and its future, theology is a greater need than philanthropy. Because men do not ‘know where they are. They are only steering by dead reckoning—when anything may happen. But theology is “taking the sun.” And it is wonderful—it is dangerous—how few of our officers can use the sextant for themselves. Yet what is the use of captains who are more at home entertaining the passengers than navigating the ship?

We are too full of ourselves

23 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching

  
P.T. Forsyth

Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, 1907

The Christian Preacher is Not

20 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in P.T. Forsyth, Preaching

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, Preaching


The Christian preacher is not the successor of the Greek orator, but of the Hebrew prophet. The orator comes with but an inspiration, the prophet comes with a revelation. In so far as the preacher and prophet had an analogue in Greece it was the dramatist, with his urgent sense of life’s guilty tragedy, its inevitable ethic, its unseen moral powers, and their atoning purifying note.

 

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind

The ideal ministry: Bibliocracy

12 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Bibliology, Ministry, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, P.T. Forsyth, Preaching

Forsyth

 

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, 37

The Chief Culprit (When Pastors Became “Priests”)

14 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Ante-Nicene, Eucharist, P. T. Forsyth, Worship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ante-Nicean, church fathers, Communion, Cyprian, Eucharist, Michael A. G. Haykin, P.T. Forsyth, Priest, Sacraments, The Lord's Supper

It seems that the concept of the Christian minister being a “priest” took place in the thought of Cyprian as mentioned in a letter (63) written approximately 253 A.D:

This letter is also noteworthy for it contains, in the estimation of the incisive Congregationalist theologian P. T. Forsyth (1848–1921), “an absolutely unscriptural change.” After linking the biblical affirmation about the offering of Christ, the high priest of God, “as a sacrifice to the Father” with His command to His disciples to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in His remembrance, Cyprian concludes that Jesus is asking His disciples to do exactly as He did. This means that the one presiding at the Eucharist “imitates that which Christ did,” when he “offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father.” In making this exegetical move, Cyprian became, according to Forsyth, “the chief culprit in effecting the change from a sacrificium laudis by the Church to a sacrificium propitiatorium by the priest.”

Continue reading →

← Older posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.4
  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.3
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.4
  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.3
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...