It is said there is an anonymous inscription on an old slab in the ancient cathedral in Lübeck, Germany, which reads:
Thus Speaketh Christ our Lord:
You call me Master and Obey me not
You call me Light and See me not
You call me Way and Walk me not
You call me Life and Desire me not
You call me Wise and Follow me not
You call me Fair and Love me not
You call me Rich and Ask me not
You call me Eternal and Seek me not
You call me Gracious and Trust me not
You call me Just and Fear me not
If I condemn you, Blame me not.
That is convicting to me, but even more that that, in Matthew 5:20 Jesus said "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." There are two ways of interpreting this, one easy and one difficult. Jesus could simply be alluding to his righteousness which is imputed to us. This is the easy way. But Jesus could be saying what we may all fear he is really saying: that unless we live more righteously than the scribes and pharisees lived, we will in no way enter the kingdom of God. This is the difficult way, and I'm troubled that it may be the correct one. This only points to the absolute connection Scripture makes between being redeemed and then as a result living a redeemed life, something easily overlooked today.
What is even more troubling though is that I often have difficulty explaining this necessary connection, as much as I know it to be true in my heart and mind. This disconnect is most obvious in my evangelism. Sure, I try to explain the necessity of the new birth. I try to explain how we should be grateful for to Christ for what he has done for us, and how good trees produce good fruit...but I can't shake the feeling that there is something deficient about my understanding. Just one evidence of my deficiency is that I have yet to work into a gospel presentation how we have been purchased by God like a slave, and how we must surrender everything to him for the righteousness he has. Maybe it is just as simple as that.
So how will I come to a fuller understanding? By much prayer and scripture, primarily. The Holy Spirit has also gifted many members of our body as teachers, both living and deceased. I'm grateful for the rich Christian heritage that we have, men like Martin Luther who stood against the forces of darkness in his own day proclaiming that "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone." So short, so elegant, so powerful. Let us all prayerfully search the Word of God, pray, and consult the collective wisdom of Christ's Church to aid in our understanding!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
How Should We Then Live: The Decline of Western Thought and Culture
#27 on Jessica's list of 30 things to do by age 30 is to read one book a year of my choosing. I have enjoyed reading a number of books over the last several years, but she may not necessarily enjoy the same things. I want this book to be one that she will learn a lot from and be excited to read. Should it be a historical book? An exposition of Scripture? Perhaps a philosophical/theological work? For 2008, the choice of book is easy.
I've recently finished reading "How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture" by Francis A. Schaeffer. Available as a video series (which I gave to my Dad for Christmas) or a more extensive and thorough book, Schaeffer chronicles the changes in philosophy, art, and science from the Roman times until the recent past (1970's), and how each of those fields influences the others. Well written and enjoyable, I have learned a great deal from it and look forward to one day rereading it as well as reading other Schaeffer books.
Christian thought, grounded in the belief that there is one God who is both rational and knowable, who created and governs the universe, provides the basis for true scientific investigation. Both the Chinese and the Persians made short term advances in science, but did not continue their investigations. The Chinese animists were not convinced that the universe was rational, as they believed in various competing deities who changed the rules governing the universe. The same can be said of the Arab/Persian world, with their commitment to belief in Allah, who they believe is completely unknowable, and is even said to deceive people. Christian men like Sir Isaac Newton were convinced that the God of the Bible, who is rational, made a rational world. Such a commitment provides the incentive to invest energy and thought into understanding the world. Not all men who have made scientific advances are Christians, but Christian thought provides the foundation for those advances. The Reformation saw great advances in architecture(and other art), philosophy, and science.
With the Enlightenment and Rationalism, man saw himself as the measure of truth, and thought that by unaided human reason, man was capable of figuring out ultimate reality. For an example in art, Michelangelo's "David" eschewes this philosophical commitment. "David" is not the David of the Bible, as the statue shows an uncircumcises male. No, this David represents how enlightened thinkers saw themselves: "David"'s overly large hands capable of doing anything, capable of achieving physical and mental perfection.
But over time unaided human reason resulted in pessimism that anything was knowable, and the loss for many of the concept of absolute truth. Life, and everything else in existence, becomes meaningless without reference to absolute, universal truth. In the place of absolute truth is relative truth by consensus, and arbitrary absolutes. Think of Supreme Court arbitrary absolutes on the subject of abortion, and countless other relative "truths" which daily affect us.
The philosophical meaninglessness and absurdity to existence was also carried into art, as can be seen in most modern art, and then to books, plays, TV, and cinema. Art, then, is the vehicle to carry ivory tower philosophies to the average joe on the street. Think of the TV show Seinfeld, and the meaninglessness of relationships, sex, or even having a cogent plot. The movies and television shows we watch all carry some sort of philosophical baggage, but we unknowingly ingest these messages. This aspect of the book really opened my eyes to the fact that I really know very little about the meaning of art and how effective it is in molding society.
There are vast area's of the book I have not touched on, that have greatly aided my understanding of the world in which we live. Ideas have power, and we owe it to ourselves and others to know what those ideas are and how they are continuing to affect every area of our lives and society, and "how we should then live". I hope you all will take my recommendation to read this book.
I've recently finished reading "How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture" by Francis A. Schaeffer. Available as a video series (which I gave to my Dad for Christmas) or a more extensive and thorough book, Schaeffer chronicles the changes in philosophy, art, and science from the Roman times until the recent past (1970's), and how each of those fields influences the others. Well written and enjoyable, I have learned a great deal from it and look forward to one day rereading it as well as reading other Schaeffer books.
Christian thought, grounded in the belief that there is one God who is both rational and knowable, who created and governs the universe, provides the basis for true scientific investigation. Both the Chinese and the Persians made short term advances in science, but did not continue their investigations. The Chinese animists were not convinced that the universe was rational, as they believed in various competing deities who changed the rules governing the universe. The same can be said of the Arab/Persian world, with their commitment to belief in Allah, who they believe is completely unknowable, and is even said to deceive people. Christian men like Sir Isaac Newton were convinced that the God of the Bible, who is rational, made a rational world. Such a commitment provides the incentive to invest energy and thought into understanding the world. Not all men who have made scientific advances are Christians, but Christian thought provides the foundation for those advances. The Reformation saw great advances in architecture(and other art), philosophy, and science.
With the Enlightenment and Rationalism, man saw himself as the measure of truth, and thought that by unaided human reason, man was capable of figuring out ultimate reality. For an example in art, Michelangelo's "David" eschewes this philosophical commitment. "David" is not the David of the Bible, as the statue shows an uncircumcises male. No, this David represents how enlightened thinkers saw themselves: "David"'s overly large hands capable of doing anything, capable of achieving physical and mental perfection.
But over time unaided human reason resulted in pessimism that anything was knowable, and the loss for many of the concept of absolute truth. Life, and everything else in existence, becomes meaningless without reference to absolute, universal truth. In the place of absolute truth is relative truth by consensus, and arbitrary absolutes. Think of Supreme Court arbitrary absolutes on the subject of abortion, and countless other relative "truths" which daily affect us.
The philosophical meaninglessness and absurdity to existence was also carried into art, as can be seen in most modern art, and then to books, plays, TV, and cinema. Art, then, is the vehicle to carry ivory tower philosophies to the average joe on the street. Think of the TV show Seinfeld, and the meaninglessness of relationships, sex, or even having a cogent plot. The movies and television shows we watch all carry some sort of philosophical baggage, but we unknowingly ingest these messages. This aspect of the book really opened my eyes to the fact that I really know very little about the meaning of art and how effective it is in molding society.
There are vast area's of the book I have not touched on, that have greatly aided my understanding of the world in which we live. Ideas have power, and we owe it to ourselves and others to know what those ideas are and how they are continuing to affect every area of our lives and society, and "how we should then live". I hope you all will take my recommendation to read this book.
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Creative" Teaching
Wednesday night I remembered how greatly I enjoy teaching.
I had the opportunity to teach the youth class at church, and will get to teach again next week. The youth pastor Aaron Wills and I were chatting about Creationism one night a few weeks back, he had asked me to come and teach about on the subject in his stead while he is out of town.
It was tough for me to decide what exactly to teach. Not because I have so little to teach on, but because there is too much to choose from. The subject matter of Creation, especially in contrast with Naturalism, encompasses every subject there is. From geology, biology, philosophy, and physics, to dinosaurs, world-views, political systems, and ethics, Naturalism is an all encompassing world-view. A big word I learned recently which describes the naturalistic world-view of evolution is "meta-narrative." A meta-narrative is a story to explain all other stories. Naturalism is philosophically committed to trying to explain everything there is in terms of natural causes, completely excluding the possibility of an outside cause such as God. The Evolution model and the Big Bang model are the stories that underpin and try to explain how Naturalism would work. (I say model, because theories can be tested and observed. Evolution and the Big Bang cannot be tested or observed. They are not theories, but models with predictions about how the world should look.)
The Bible is also a meta-narrative in that Scripture can explains all other stories, or to say it another way, can explain how everything came to be, why things exist the way they are now, and where everything is headed in history. I believe the Bible better answers these questions than any other world view, and does so accurately, meaningfully, and without contradiction. Now that is a lot to talk about, a lot more than can fit in a couple hours!
But I gave it my best shot with the time allowed. I finally decided a good place to start is on the Bible's claims about the age of the earth as compared with the Naturalistic/Evolutionary view of billions of years, and various ways you can show that the earth is no more than six to ten thousand years old. I also talked about some of the consequences of the two differing views of the world. The credibility of Jesus, and the entire rest of the Bible, are at stake since Jesus claims that man was made in the beginning, on the sixth day of creation. But as things go, I ran out of time before I could talk about some of my favorite issues. So, I issued a challenge for when the group returns next Wednesday night. The challenge for them is to bring the top 'proofs' offered in their science textbooks for Evolution and/or questions they may have about the Bible's claims for us to discuss. I’m fairly certain my favorite topics will come up from that, but I also want to try and answer what most challenges them. It should prove to be even more exciting than this class was.
What do I hope for them to gain out of all of this? Primarily I want the students’ faith in God’s word to increase and I want them to always be prepared to give an answer for the faith which they have. I also want them to have the same wonder and amazement that I have when I look at the world, to see that the creation proclaims the glory of its Maker.
For your reading and viewing pleasure, here are some recommended websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
--has great articles on a large array of subjects.
http://www.creationscience.com/
--has a free online book which is especially strong in its explanations of geology and the physical sciences, written be an engineer. The book is also available for purchase in a hard back version (which I have), suitable for middle school and up.
http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/index.html
Free videos on a wide variety of subjects
Some good books to read:
Scientific Creationism Edited by Henry M. Morris, 1974 .Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89051-003-2
In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - by Dr. Walt Brown
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. 1998. Touchstone Books (Simon & Schuster), 320 pages. ISBN # 0-684-82754-9
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils - Marvin L. Lubenow: 1992 Baker Books. ISBN 0-8010-5677-2
Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson. 1993 InterVarsity Press, 195 pages.
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? - by Jonathan Wells. 2002. Regnery Publishing. 338 pages.
I had the opportunity to teach the youth class at church, and will get to teach again next week. The youth pastor Aaron Wills and I were chatting about Creationism one night a few weeks back, he had asked me to come and teach about on the subject in his stead while he is out of town.
It was tough for me to decide what exactly to teach. Not because I have so little to teach on, but because there is too much to choose from. The subject matter of Creation, especially in contrast with Naturalism, encompasses every subject there is. From geology, biology, philosophy, and physics, to dinosaurs, world-views, political systems, and ethics, Naturalism is an all encompassing world-view. A big word I learned recently which describes the naturalistic world-view of evolution is "meta-narrative." A meta-narrative is a story to explain all other stories. Naturalism is philosophically committed to trying to explain everything there is in terms of natural causes, completely excluding the possibility of an outside cause such as God. The Evolution model and the Big Bang model are the stories that underpin and try to explain how Naturalism would work. (I say model, because theories can be tested and observed. Evolution and the Big Bang cannot be tested or observed. They are not theories, but models with predictions about how the world should look.)
The Bible is also a meta-narrative in that Scripture can explains all other stories, or to say it another way, can explain how everything came to be, why things exist the way they are now, and where everything is headed in history. I believe the Bible better answers these questions than any other world view, and does so accurately, meaningfully, and without contradiction. Now that is a lot to talk about, a lot more than can fit in a couple hours!
But I gave it my best shot with the time allowed. I finally decided a good place to start is on the Bible's claims about the age of the earth as compared with the Naturalistic/Evolutionary view of billions of years, and various ways you can show that the earth is no more than six to ten thousand years old. I also talked about some of the consequences of the two differing views of the world. The credibility of Jesus, and the entire rest of the Bible, are at stake since Jesus claims that man was made in the beginning, on the sixth day of creation. But as things go, I ran out of time before I could talk about some of my favorite issues. So, I issued a challenge for when the group returns next Wednesday night. The challenge for them is to bring the top 'proofs' offered in their science textbooks for Evolution and/or questions they may have about the Bible's claims for us to discuss. I’m fairly certain my favorite topics will come up from that, but I also want to try and answer what most challenges them. It should prove to be even more exciting than this class was.
What do I hope for them to gain out of all of this? Primarily I want the students’ faith in God’s word to increase and I want them to always be prepared to give an answer for the faith which they have. I also want them to have the same wonder and amazement that I have when I look at the world, to see that the creation proclaims the glory of its Maker.
For your reading and viewing pleasure, here are some recommended websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
--has great articles on a large array of subjects.
http://www.creationscience.com/
--has a free online book which is especially strong in its explanations of geology and the physical sciences, written be an engineer. The book is also available for purchase in a hard back version (which I have), suitable for middle school and up.
http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/index.html
Free videos on a wide variety of subjects
Some good books to read:
Scientific Creationism Edited by Henry M. Morris, 1974 .Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89051-003-2
In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - by Dr. Walt Brown
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. 1998. Touchstone Books (Simon & Schuster), 320 pages. ISBN # 0-684-82754-9
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils - Marvin L. Lubenow: 1992 Baker Books. ISBN 0-8010-5677-2
Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson. 1993 InterVarsity Press, 195 pages.
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? - by Jonathan Wells. 2002. Regnery Publishing. 338 pages.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
His yoke is easy, His burden is light
I forget things at times. Ask Jessica and she will tell you I forget much more than I even know (go figure that.) As I was washing every food-caked-dish we own last night, I was jamming out to Caedmon's call. A song (Your love oh Lord) played, and it inspired me to remember what I all too often forget: just how easy the yoke of Jesus is, how light is his burden.
This thought comes on the heels of writing back and forth with someone of a different faith. She wrote:
"the most important aspect of any religion is the concept of SALVATION. this verse, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5) how can ur faith be reckoned as righteousness when you show no good works? there is a reason why we Muslims follow the teachings of Jesus and Muhammed (peace be upon them both)....it is to ACHIEVE salvation as God has ordained for us." (emphasis hers)
What a different view, always looking for a way to earn what is actually a free gift. What a heavy burden to bear. Of course, this passage is not saying that the one saved will show no works. The idea being expressed is "But to the one who does not work [to earn his salvation], but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly [for his salvation], his faith [in Christ's work on his behalf] is reckoned as righteousness." Though not exhaustive, that is the context of the passage. Jesus plain teaching, as with the rest of Scripture, is that salvation can only be received by faith because our works are not good enough.
He says "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."(Matt. 11:29-30) Throughout history, people have sought salvation by works. But, the Bible teaches that they ALL fail at such an attempt. Christians believe that (and the Bible teaches that) the good works necessary for anyone to be saved were performed by Jesus Christ, and credited to our account for anyone who has faith. The works we do now are no longer as a bond servant, forever trying to pay off a debt that grows exponentially every day. No, the works we do now are as sons of God, out of love for our Father. The grace of God so radically changes those who have been redeemed that we long to do what God says, simply because he asks. Because we love Him. Because He loved us first.
Lamentations 3:22-23
"22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;
his mercies never come to an end;
23 they are new every morning;
great is your faithfulness.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Debate with Muslims: Proof, not mere evidence
Recently I've been dialoguing with some Muslim aquaintances of mine about all manner of issue. One of those debates can be found here: The great challenge to produce one chapter like the chapters of the Holy Quran
We've run into a problem here, one which may shed some light on what our debate is really about to anyone else who may be reading this.
Mohammed wrote a number of things about Jesus and the Bible that conflict with what the Bible itself. As a basic tenent of your faith, you must necessarily argue that the Bible is in error. If you are to hold to your faith, it is paramount that you discredit the Bible and assert that the authors of its book misquote Jesus, and so on. If not, Mohammed is wrong and your whole religion crumbles. Would you agree?
Christianity does not need to prove that there has been errors in transmision of the Quran. It can be exactly reproduced from what Mohammed wrote for all we care. All we need to do is show the proof or necessity of Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human, and that by default makes Mohammed in error. Not that the text was copied inaccurately, but that when he wrote it he was himself wrong.
Thus, Muslims mount evidence, and loads of it, against the Bible. Christians then supply answers for why this evidence is inconclusive, distorted, or plain wrong. And on we go, endlessly. But there is a difference between evidence and proof. Your arguments rely upon a weight of evidence with which you hope to smother the opposition. Christians do the same against evolution, showing by weight of evidence how it is wrong. Proof is different. Proof requires rational arguments that necessarily lead to a conclusion if the premises are correct. In the case of evolution, we can rationally prove that pure chance can't creat anything, and that the world cannot be eternally old and self-existent, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe would have died a cold death. Such arguments don't rely upon a weight of evidence, but upon proof. Proof doesn't need evidence that can be debated back and forth. Proof only needs basic presuppositions we can agree upon, and a line of reasoning that conforms to the rules of logic. The conclusion is then a necessity, whether we like that conclusion or not.
Christianity has survived 2000 years against endless attempt to smother with evidence. The Liberals who hate God, yet want to keep the morality of the Bible, also mount such attacks on the Bible. So do Atheists and Agnostics. It is likely where many of your evidences comes from, such as the late dates of the Gospels, or the JDEP source theory for the Pentateuch. I can show that the Gospels must have had an early date, and Mosaic authorship, but what is the point? A basic tenent on your faith requires you to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and no weight of evidence will change that, no matter how convincing. You can just say we are wrong.
So what I'm saying is, we are at a dead lock when it comes to "mounting evidence" against each other. I know that no weight of evidence, however true it may be, can convince you that the Quran is wrong. Nor can your weight of evidence convince me the Bible is wrong, because it is only evidence, not proof. I've studied the evidence agaisnt the Bible. I find it faulty, historically ill-supported, and very conjectural.
You need to give me proof that God cannot be Trinity. I need to provide you with proof (logical necessity) that God must be Trinity, and that for God to let anyone into Heaven their sins must be paid for by a worthy sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Everything hinges on that, and everything falls into place if that is true.
Here is the question I pose for us to debate: How can God be both just, and the justifier of men?
Will you grant that God is just? Second, will you grant that all men have a conscience given them by God? Third, will you grant that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments? I think those three would be a good starting place.
We've run into a problem here, one which may shed some light on what our debate is really about to anyone else who may be reading this.
Mohammed wrote a number of things about Jesus and the Bible that conflict with what the Bible itself. As a basic tenent of your faith, you must necessarily argue that the Bible is in error. If you are to hold to your faith, it is paramount that you discredit the Bible and assert that the authors of its book misquote Jesus, and so on. If not, Mohammed is wrong and your whole religion crumbles. Would you agree?
Christianity does not need to prove that there has been errors in transmision of the Quran. It can be exactly reproduced from what Mohammed wrote for all we care. All we need to do is show the proof or necessity of Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human, and that by default makes Mohammed in error. Not that the text was copied inaccurately, but that when he wrote it he was himself wrong.
Thus, Muslims mount evidence, and loads of it, against the Bible. Christians then supply answers for why this evidence is inconclusive, distorted, or plain wrong. And on we go, endlessly. But there is a difference between evidence and proof. Your arguments rely upon a weight of evidence with which you hope to smother the opposition. Christians do the same against evolution, showing by weight of evidence how it is wrong. Proof is different. Proof requires rational arguments that necessarily lead to a conclusion if the premises are correct. In the case of evolution, we can rationally prove that pure chance can't creat anything, and that the world cannot be eternally old and self-existent, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe would have died a cold death. Such arguments don't rely upon a weight of evidence, but upon proof. Proof doesn't need evidence that can be debated back and forth. Proof only needs basic presuppositions we can agree upon, and a line of reasoning that conforms to the rules of logic. The conclusion is then a necessity, whether we like that conclusion or not.
Christianity has survived 2000 years against endless attempt to smother with evidence. The Liberals who hate God, yet want to keep the morality of the Bible, also mount such attacks on the Bible. So do Atheists and Agnostics. It is likely where many of your evidences comes from, such as the late dates of the Gospels, or the JDEP source theory for the Pentateuch. I can show that the Gospels must have had an early date, and Mosaic authorship, but what is the point? A basic tenent on your faith requires you to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and no weight of evidence will change that, no matter how convincing. You can just say we are wrong.
So what I'm saying is, we are at a dead lock when it comes to "mounting evidence" against each other. I know that no weight of evidence, however true it may be, can convince you that the Quran is wrong. Nor can your weight of evidence convince me the Bible is wrong, because it is only evidence, not proof. I've studied the evidence agaisnt the Bible. I find it faulty, historically ill-supported, and very conjectural.
You need to give me proof that God cannot be Trinity. I need to provide you with proof (logical necessity) that God must be Trinity, and that for God to let anyone into Heaven their sins must be paid for by a worthy sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Everything hinges on that, and everything falls into place if that is true.
Here is the question I pose for us to debate: How can God be both just, and the justifier of men?
Will you grant that God is just? Second, will you grant that all men have a conscience given them by God? Third, will you grant that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments? I think those three would be a good starting place.
Transparency of Christianity in relation to the Bible
I've been in some discussion lately with some Muslim. Most of it centers around attacks on Scripture and why there would be different books in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. For the reason why Muslims are so dead set on discrediting the Bible, see this blog. Here is my answer, which I think you will enjoy. (It will also help you debunk Davinci Code theories)
The transparency of Christianity in relation to its texts is a virtue, not a weakness. We don't destroy alternate copies, we preserve them and can show why, how, and when mistakes in copy were made, and can prove definitively what the originals said. The same cannot be said of the Quran...all you have is one edited compiled copy, and you have to trust that the one doing the editing wasn't mistaken, since all of the evidence of other texts has been destroyed. You can't prove it. We can. (But I'm not arguing the Quran has accumulated errors in its transmission, just showing you that if you follow this line of argument you will tear your own Quran apart by the exact same faulty arguments.)
In relation to the Christian cannon, those books Christians hold to be inspired by God and thus infallible, we know much from attacks upon the cannon. The early heretic Marcion made a list of which books of the Old and New Testament he considered to be false, and which were true (even some he edited to fit his strange theology.) By telling us which documents he thought were correct and which he did not, that tells us exactly which documents the early church held to be inspired. Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, and a few other books in the Catholic Bible are not on those lists. Marcion did not need to argue that these books were uninspired, because no one believed they were when he was writing. Does that make sense?
There are a number of other lines of reasoning and evidences, such as which Old Testament books are quoted in the New Testament, and so on, but that should suffice I think to show which books the early church father accepted as inspired.
If that didn't make sense yet, here are a couple illustrations to explain further....
I'm not necessarily asking if you agree and think the Bible is inspired or anything, just if the argument is rational. Let me give one last example: Suppose a document were found from the 7th or 8th century which made claims that Surah's 1-100 are not correct, only 101-114 are correct. (I didn't want to list the names of each of the Surah's, but suppose the author had mentioned them by name.) What would that tell us? It would tell us the Muslims of the 7th and 8th century held that Surah's 1-114 are legitimately part of the Koran, otherwise this heretic would not have needed to argue against something no one believed. The author would not need to argue that the Works of Josephus were not a part of the Koran. Why? Because no one thought they were.
In the same way, the heretic Marcion listed all of the 66 books we have in the Bible, arguing some were inspired and others were not. We know why he argued as he did, because he was a Gnostic, trying to mix strange paganism with Christianity. But Marcion didn't argue that The Works of Josephus were not a part of Scripture, nor that they were a part. He didn't even mention them. Why? Because no one thought they were a part of Scripture, hence no reason to even bring them up. the same goes for the extra books of the Apocrapha.
So yes, the 66 books are inspired. Again, this is not why the 66 books were 'chosen.' (that is a whole different subject, and one which we have to cover on a book by book basis...quite a lengthy process) But from our perspective 1900 or so years later, we can know exactly which books of the Bible the early church fathers (those who were the direct disciples of the Apostles) believed were inspired due to attacks upon it, and the true church's response to Marcion in defense of those same 66 books.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Thailand!
God willing, Jessi and I will be headed to Chiangmai, Thailand this Summer! I had been meaning to post a note here about it for some time, but have been busy studying for finals and such. (still am...or should be...)
We will be gone from July 11 through July 30. While there, I will take a class on "Buddhism and Islam" and an "International Evangelism Practicum." Translation: I get to learn about both of those religions and witness to Imams at Mosques and Monks at Temples. We will also get to go to the Buddhist University near Chiangmai and talk with students who want to improve their english.
Of course we won't be alone. A group from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, another from Southeastern Seminary, and some missionaries from Southeast Asia will all be meeting up in Chiangmai. A couple of our friends who are lifetime missionaries, Katie and Joseph, will also be going. So while Joseph and I are in classes and out at various locations, Jessi will be helping Katie with the kids as they traverse the area witnessing to locals and doing a little shopping/site-seeing.
Thailand is 95% Buddhist, 4% Muslim, and 1% everything else. So, please be praying that God would open the hearts of the Thai people to receive the Gospel, and that we wil be emboldened to share it with them.
Recently, I had the wonderful opportunity to speak in front of the Eisenhauer Road Baptist Church congregation about our trip. It was "Missions Day," so I was able to put in a plug for various kind of missions, as well request for ourselves prayers, encouragement, and financial aid.
One plug I made while talking, which I'm making again here, was for the Cooperative Program of the SBC. Besides cutting my tuition in half for seminary, which is already significantly cheaper then other evangelical seminaries, the Cooperative program supports other efforts including the 5000+ international missionaries and 5000+ North American missionaries. So instead of missionaries spliting their time and energy between missions work and worrying where their next meal will come from (or requesting aid from friends, family, and churches like we are doing) they get to devote all of their time to their work.
The one drawback of the Cooperative program is the annonimity. Most of us don't kno who any of them are. So while their financial needs are met through the Coop. Prog. (most of it from Lotti Moon offering) we do still need to partner with them for prayer and encouragement. Maybe send them care packages occasionaly as well. In many places you can't get BBQ sauce, or coffee, or even a pound of sugar.
Jessica and I might not be called to full time international missions work, and you might not be either (though none of us should ever rule it out and tell God what we won't do!) But we are all given the Great Commission, and one of the ways we can fulfill that is by sending out and supporting missionaries just as Paul and Barnabas were sent out. Pray for them, encourage them, partner with them, let them come tell their stories at your churches when they come back to the States, and give to the Lotti Moon Christmas offering. 100% of that goes directly to funding international missions work. Since I've been here at SWBTS in Ft. Worth I've been able to meet and get to know closely a number of missionaries. I've been highly impressed by their character, so if I come off sounding passionate about missions, its because I've really come to believe that the work they do is of God and worth our support.
Alright, that's the end of my plug for the Cooperative Program. :) If you have any questions about our trip to Thailand, please let me know. If we are able to, Jessi and I will post blogs and pictures from Thailand. Pray for us!
We will be gone from July 11 through July 30. While there, I will take a class on "Buddhism and Islam" and an "International Evangelism Practicum." Translation: I get to learn about both of those religions and witness to Imams at Mosques and Monks at Temples. We will also get to go to the Buddhist University near Chiangmai and talk with students who want to improve their english.
Of course we won't be alone. A group from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, another from Southeastern Seminary, and some missionaries from Southeast Asia will all be meeting up in Chiangmai. A couple of our friends who are lifetime missionaries, Katie and Joseph, will also be going. So while Joseph and I are in classes and out at various locations, Jessi will be helping Katie with the kids as they traverse the area witnessing to locals and doing a little shopping/site-seeing.
Thailand is 95% Buddhist, 4% Muslim, and 1% everything else. So, please be praying that God would open the hearts of the Thai people to receive the Gospel, and that we wil be emboldened to share it with them.
Recently, I had the wonderful opportunity to speak in front of the Eisenhauer Road Baptist Church congregation about our trip. It was "Missions Day," so I was able to put in a plug for various kind of missions, as well request for ourselves prayers, encouragement, and financial aid.
One plug I made while talking, which I'm making again here, was for the Cooperative Program of the SBC. Besides cutting my tuition in half for seminary, which is already significantly cheaper then other evangelical seminaries, the Cooperative program supports other efforts including the 5000+ international missionaries and 5000+ North American missionaries. So instead of missionaries spliting their time and energy between missions work and worrying where their next meal will come from (or requesting aid from friends, family, and churches like we are doing) they get to devote all of their time to their work.
The one drawback of the Cooperative program is the annonimity. Most of us don't kno who any of them are. So while their financial needs are met through the Coop. Prog. (most of it from Lotti Moon offering) we do still need to partner with them for prayer and encouragement. Maybe send them care packages occasionaly as well. In many places you can't get BBQ sauce, or coffee, or even a pound of sugar.
Jessica and I might not be called to full time international missions work, and you might not be either (though none of us should ever rule it out and tell God what we won't do!) But we are all given the Great Commission, and one of the ways we can fulfill that is by sending out and supporting missionaries just as Paul and Barnabas were sent out. Pray for them, encourage them, partner with them, let them come tell their stories at your churches when they come back to the States, and give to the Lotti Moon Christmas offering. 100% of that goes directly to funding international missions work. Since I've been here at SWBTS in Ft. Worth I've been able to meet and get to know closely a number of missionaries. I've been highly impressed by their character, so if I come off sounding passionate about missions, its because I've really come to believe that the work they do is of God and worth our support.
Alright, that's the end of my plug for the Cooperative Program. :) If you have any questions about our trip to Thailand, please let me know. If we are able to, Jessi and I will post blogs and pictures from Thailand. Pray for us!
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Oh for a thousand tongues...(Bible Study)
I've had a number of discussiong lately about "the gift of tongues" and I thought my friends might benefit from some research I've put into the subject. I'm simply addressing the practice as taught in Scripture and whether modern practices have any resemblance to that.
Tongues in Acts
The first occurrence of the miracle of tongues in the New Testament occurs in Acts 2:1-12. Luke records that the disciples "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."(Acts 2:4.) We are told that in Acts 2:6-8 "6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" The speaking in other tongues, used here in the plural, was a miracle that allowed everyone to hear what the disciples said in their own language. Either the miracle was that the disciples were able to speak in the numerous earthly languages of those visiting
At four different times in Acts, the Holy Spirit is poured out visibly upon a people group who had not previously be included among God's people, giving proof that God has decided to include them in the church (Acts 2:1-12, 8:17, 10:44-46, and 19:6.) The miracle of tongues occurred at most of these times, though not all.
Tongues and Tongue in 1 Corinthians 12-14
In I Corinthians, speaking in a "tongue" and speaking in "tongues," singular and plural respectively, are addressed in chapters 12-14. Careful reading is required here, because I believe Paul speaks of these two practices quite differently. If your translation of the Bible does not keep that distinction, find a new Bible, for the translator had a special bias for eliminating that distinction.
There are two interpretations of "speaking in a tongue," "speaking in tongues," and "interpretation of tongues" which I believe can fit the Biblical evidence. The interpretation which I think best fits the text is that Paul's references to plural tongues is a reference to an ability to speak in a language previously unknown to the speaker, but known to a hearer, as happened at Pentecost. These would be actual languages, like Latin, Greek, German, and so on. Paul's references to a singular tongue would be a counterfeit gift, gibberish speak (see 1 Cor. 14:7-9) imported from their former pagan practices (Paul introduces the discourse on gifts in chapter 12 with a reference to Pagan ways.)
Paul tells us that "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7) and not for selfish use. Speaking in a language no one understands benefits no one (see 1 Cor 14:6.) But we are to strive to excel in building up the church (1 Cor
In the case of speaking in a tongue (singular,) this could be a counterfeit gift where a person longing for the true gift of speaking in tongues spouts forth gibberish speak. Why would it be singular? Because there is only one kind of gibberish, not multiple dialects of gibberish. Praying for the interpretation of a gibberish language would actually be a bit of sarcasm on the part of Paul, because no one would be found who could actually interpret. Why? Because there is nothing to interpret, thought in our own day counterfeit interpretation happens regularly. Regardless, if the language spoken by the person who speaks in a tongue is not a human language, then it is not the same thing as happened in Acts 2 and is a counterfeit gift.
Another option the text allows is that the gift of tongues refers to ability to speak other languages through natural means: study and practice. Remember, all of our abilities are a gift from God. If this is the case then the miracle of speaking in tongues performed in Acts is different from gifted ability to speak in various languages. I favor the first interpretation, but the conclusion is still the same: if your congregation does not speak Latin, don't talk to them in Latin. If no one can interpret, keep it to yourself. They won't benefit, so it is a selfish use of your gift. Further, there is nothing in the text that would indicate the miracle of tongues in Acts bears any resemblance to what occurs in modern "charismatic" churches.
One last practice Paul addresses is praying in a tongue (1 Cor.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Where does your assurance lay? (Bible Study)
Romans 8:16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God
John Wesley believed that the great evangelical truth of Romans 8:16 had been nearly lost and forgotten, that the Spirit of God testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children. The Scriptures speak frequently and clearly on this matter, the purpose of which is to denote a peculiar privilege of the children of God from verse 17:"...and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."
So how does this testimony work? Or in other words, how can we have assurance that we are children of God?
The operation of this testimony of the Spirit is "an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God." What Wesley means, which he says we are to observe, is that this testimony is not by an outward voice, nor an inward voice, though he may do that sometimes. The inward testimony of the Spirit is instead an "inexplicable operation, that…there is a sweet calm; the heart resting…being clearly satisfied that God is reconciled, that all his iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered."
But isn't that a little subjective? Wesley seems to be appealing to a feeling, that if one is inwardly calm and feels their sins are covered by God, and does not a have spirit of fear (as in Romans 8:15), then they must be a child of God. I run into folks every weekend who feel safe and secure, who will one day say "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name..." and yet being headed to hell. So there is a false sense of security many are liable to. But where does a true sense of security come from?
The explicable, objective assurance that we are children of God come from the previous three verses:"13For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" "
How does Paul say our assurance that we are children of God come? We know we are children of God if we are led by the Spirit. We know we are being led by the Spirit of God as by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the body. All who are led by the Spirit of God have recieved the Spirit of adoption as sons. The objective reality of being led by the Spirit, of being adopted into God's family is a great reason to be unafraid, assure of your adoption.
That is the testimony of this passage of Scripture. A profession you once made means nothing if you are not led by the Spirit. If you are leaning on a profession you once made, that is false assurance.
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, being led by the Spirit is not sinless perfection, but should be the direction of your life. It is an attitude of repentance, where God brings sin in your life to your attention and by the Spirit of God you put it to death. Repentance is not the reason you are saved, but it is the necessary response to it. You can cry "Abba! Father!" because you love God and understand the greatest expression of His love toward you: the Cross. How can we continue loving our sin, knowing that the wrath we deserve was poured out on Christ because of it?
Monday, January 8, 2007
Good book to read
I'm currently reading Amillennialism Today, and let me tell you, it is a page turner. Don't be thrown off by the name, the book explains the meaning of the title.
There are at least five distinct views on the end-times(eschatology), and all of them claim to use the same methods of Biblical interpretation to arrive at their conclusions. The problem is not the method, but the consistence with which it is used. From my study, I've slowly been leaning towards the Amillenial view, as it best fits with the rest of the Bible.
This book is probably 140 small pages or less...short and to the point. If you are looking to understand end times prophecy, or how the promises given to Israel affect the Church, this is the book for you. It is nothing new or novel, but has helped me to cut through the doctrinal clutter created by the Left Behind movies, John Haggie, and all those other guys on TBN. You can find it on Amazon for around 5-10 dollars.
There are at least five distinct views on the end-times(eschatology), and all of them claim to use the same methods of Biblical interpretation to arrive at their conclusions. The problem is not the method, but the consistence with which it is used. From my study, I've slowly been leaning towards the Amillenial view, as it best fits with the rest of the Bible.
This book is probably 140 small pages or less...short and to the point. If you are looking to understand end times prophecy, or how the promises given to Israel affect the Church, this is the book for you. It is nothing new or novel, but has helped me to cut through the doctrinal clutter created by the Left Behind movies, John Haggie, and all those other guys on TBN. You can find it on Amazon for around 5-10 dollars.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Heresies and Errors
I frequently use the word "heresy." I confess that I use it too liberally. I believe that heresies refer to errors in God's very nature, errors such as denying the humanity or deity of Christ, or denying the Holy Spirit. Heresies are sufficiently grevious that if one truely holds to a heresy, there is good reason to question if that person can even be a Christian. There are some (actually plenty of) errors, that refer to other smaller issues of interpretation, such as whether it was a fish or a whale that swallowed Jonah.
From here on out I'm going to try and stick to this convention of words. My apologies for over-zealously using the word "heresy" for things that are not heretical.
From here on out I'm going to try and stick to this convention of words. My apologies for over-zealously using the word "heresy" for things that are not heretical.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Human Nature in Its Fourfold State
I am studying for my Church History final, and the following article about man's nature was helpful to me. I think it might be helpful and interesting to you as well. I welcome discussion.
Human Nature in Its Fourfold State
Thoughts on Augustine's View on the Will
In his famous book, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, the Scottish Puritan, Thomas Boston (1676–1732) tells us that the four states of human nature are: (a) Primitive Integrity; (b) Entire Depravity; (c) Begun Recovery; and (d) Consummate Happiness or Misery.
These four states, which are derived from the Scripture, correspond to the four states of man in relation to sin enumerated by Augustine of Hippo: (a) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (b) not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); (c) able not to sin (posse non peccare); and (d) unable to sin (non posse peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocency, before the Fall; the second the state of the natural man after the Fall; the third the state of the regenerate man; and the fourth the glorified man.
It must be noted that in all four states, man is free to choose what to do or not to do according to his will. His will is free because it is not forced or compelled from without. However, his will is determined by his own moral inclinations. This means that while the glorified man will always choose to do good because his heart's inclination is always to glorify God; the natural fallen man will always do what is evil (in God's eyes), because his motives are never pure, and never to glorify God.
Before the Fall, man was able to choose to do either good or evil, his heart, and so his inclination and disposition, being innocent and not tainted by sin. But Adam's state was mutable and when Satan tempted Eve, and then through Eve, tempted him, he chose to sin against God by eating the forbidden fruit and so fell from the estate of innocency.
- Quoted from Pilgrim Covenant Church
| Pre-Fall Man | Post-Fall Man | Reborn Man | Glorified Man |
| able to sin | able to sin | able to sin | able to not sin |
| able to not sin | unable to not sin | able to not sin | unable to sin |
Here is some of what Augustine himself had to say about this.
Man's original capacities included both the power not to sin and the power to sin ( posse non peccare et posse peccare ). In Adam's original sin, man lost the posse non peccare (the power not to sin) and retained the posse peccare (the power to sin)--which he continues to exercise. In the fulfillment of grace, man will have the posse peccare taken away and receive the highest of all, the power not to be able to sin, non posse peccare . Cf. On Correction and Grace XXXIII.
Augustine's ENCHIRIDION, CHAP. 118.--THE FOUR STAGES OF THE CHRISTAIN'S LIFE, AND THE FOUR CORRESPONDING STAGES OF THE CHURCH'S HISTORY.
When, sunk in the darkest depths of ignorance, man lives according to the flesh undisturbed by any struggle of reason or conscience, this is his first state. Afterwards, when through the law has come the knowledge of sin, and the Spirit of God has not yet interposed His aid, man, striving to live according to the law, is thwarted in his efforts and falls into conscious sin, and so, being overcome of sin, becomes its slave ("for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage"(4)); and thus the effect produced by the knowledge of the commandment is this, that sin worketh in man all manner of concupiscence, and he is involved in the additional guilt of willful transgression, and that is fulfilled which is written: "The, law entered that the Offense might abound."(5) This is man's second state. But if God has regard to him, and inspires him with faith in God's help, and the Spirit of God begins to work in him, then the mightier power of love strives against the power of the flesh; and although there is still in the man's own nature a power that fights against him (for his disease is not completely cured), yet he lives the life of the just by faith, and lives in righteousness so far as he does not yield to evil lust, but conquers it by the love of holiness. This is the third state of a man of good hope; and he who by steadfast piety advances in this course, shall attain at last to peace, that peace which, after this life is over, shall be perfected in the repose of the spirit, and finally in the resurrection of the body. Of these four different stages the first is before the law, the second is under the law, the third is under grace, and the fourth is in full and perfect peace. Thus, too, has the history of God's people been ordered according to His pleasure who disposeth all things in number, and measure, and weight.(6) For the church existed at first before the law; then under the law, which was given by Moses; then under grace, which was first made manifest in the coming of the Mediator. Not, indeed, that this grace was absent previously, but, in harmony with the arrangements of the time, it was veiled and hidden. For none, even of the just men of old, could find salvation apart from the faith of Christ; nor unless He had been known to them could their ministry have been used to convey prophecies concerning Him to us, some more plain, and some more obscure.
From this we conclude, again with Augustine, that:
- the children of God are actuated by His Spirit to do whatever is to be done
- they are drawn by Him, out of an unwilling state to be made willing
- since the fall it is owing only to the grace of God that man draws near to Him
- it is owing only to the same grace that God does not withdraw or recede from him
- we know that no good thing which is our own can be found in our will
- by the magnitude of the first sin, we lost the freedom of the will to believe in God and live holy lives
- therefore "it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs"—not because we ought not to will and to run, but because God effects both the willing and the running.
- Reisinger
From http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-fold.html
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
SCRIPTURE & TRADITION: SOLA SCRIPTURA
The following is a paper I wrote for my Biblical Hermeneutics(Art and Science of Biblical Interpretation) class. It is a research paper, so none of the ideas are my own. If anyone has the desire and patience to read through this admittedly long paper, I first will applaud you, and secondly I believe you will be blessed by it. Let me know your thoughts and questions.
SCRIPTURE & TRADITION: SOLA SCRIPTURA
"How do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: Tradition!"
–Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof[1]
Introduction
As R.C. Sproul writes, "The Canon of the New Testament rests upon a 'tradition.' The term 'tradition' is often viewed by a jaundiced eye among Evangelicals. It suffers from the problem of guilt by association [with the role played by tradition in Rome.]"[2]
Both the aversion to the view of Tradition held by Roman Catholics, and Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees for supplanting the word of God with the traditions of men, has led to the outright rejection of tradition by some Evangelicals.[3] As R.C. Sproul goes on to write of this rejection,
The danger in this is to miss the important role tradition plays within the scope of Scripture itself. Scripture does not reject all tradition. It repudiates the traditions of men, but affirms another tradition—the divine tradition. Paul, for example, frequently speaks of tradition in a positive sense. He speaks of that body of truth that was given over to the church by Christ and the Apostles."
One of the battle cries of the sixteenth-century Reformation was sola Scriptura, a Latin slogan meaning "Scripture alone." What is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition? This paper will give a broad overview of the history of views held from the time of the early church fathers to modern times, with special emphasis upon the Reformation call to sola Scriptura.
Four Views of Tradition
According to Keith A. Mathison, "The historical debate over the doctrine of sola Scriptura is often wrongly characterized in terms of a conflict between Scripture and tradition. It is actually a debate involving different concepts of tradition. There have been, during the church's history, essentially four main views of tradition."[5] A proper understanding of the historical debate over the understanding of tradition will help us to understand where the doctrine of sola Scriptura fits into that context. [6]
The first view of tradition sees the content of Scripture and tradition as identical. This first view is a 'one-source' theory of revelation, which has been termed "Tradition I" by Heiko A. Oberman. [7]As Keith A. Mathison writes of this first view of tradition.
According to this understanding of Scripture and tradition, the apostolic doctrine, which had been orally preached for decades after the death of Christ, was eventually written down in the books of the New Testament. This New Testament Scripture, along with the Old Testament, is the sole source of inspired revelation, and it is to be interpreted by the Church within the context of the apostolic rule of faith.[8]
A 'two-source' theory or revelation, termed "Tradition II," [9]views Scripture and tradition as "two equally authoritative and supplementary sources of divine revelation. On this view, the content of Scripture and tradition are not identical."[10]
A third view of tradition "understands the real source of revelation to be the living magisterium (teaching office) of the church.[11] This view of tradition has been termed "Tradition III."[12]
The last view "rejects any role for tradition in any sense and argues that every individual is able to interpret Scripture correctly for himself according to his own private judgment, apart from the church, the creeds, and any other human help." [13] This final view is referred to as "Tradition 0," or solo Scriptura.[14]
Historical Development of the Four Views
Source of Authority for Early Church Fathers – Tradition I
According to Keith A. Mathison, "The early Fathers generally understood tradition to be the body of doctrine that had been committed to the church by Jesus and his apostles, whether orally or in writing. The content of this body of doctrine was the same, regardless of the form in which it was communicated." [15] It is worth noting that the message of the gospel was first an oral message, and not a written text. As D.H. Williams writes,
The apostolic Tradition had chronological and logical precedence over the texts which would eventually become the New Testament…The church received its Scripture in light of what had been handed down (tradere) by and about Jesus Christ…The gospel was not originally a text, but an oral message focused on the incarnation of the Living God. [16]
This oral message is the apostolic tradition. R.C. Sproul writes, "It was the apostolic tradition that was codified in the formalization of the New Testament Canon." [17] --> -->
Keith A. Mathison writes further of the origin of the New Testament Scriptures, that they were:
…the inscripturation of the apostolic proclamation. It was the same apostolic proclamation that had previously been preached orally. Together with the Old Testament, it was the church's source of divine revelation, and it was the sole doctrinal authority. The early Christians also believed that this written Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the general rule of faith taught by the apostles. At this early point in history, however, there is no indication that the Fathers believed that they had recourse to any second source of revelation that contained things not found in the New Testament. In other words, in the first three centuries, the church taught the concept of tradition described above as Tradition I. [18] --> -->
Roman Catholics often cite early church fathers to support a two-source view of tradition. Though a thorough treatment of the early church fathers is beyond the scope of this paper, a few examples of those most frequently cited by Roman Catholics must suffice. Take for example Basil's letter to Eustathius the physician:
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth. [19]
Here, Basil notes that he does not consider it fair that the custom of his opponents should be valued as authoritative proof of orthodoxy. Instead, it is the Scriptures inspired by God, and not a secondary source of tradition, which is the final arbiter of truth.
Another father oft cited by those who hold to a two-source view of tradition is Athanasius. In a letter to Egyptian Bishops, Athanasius writes "But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word." [20] Athanasius could well have written about two authorities, but instead cited Scripture as being sufficient of all things. Elsewhere, Athanasius writes:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. [21]
Athanasius makes it clear that Councils and other independent traditions are not necessary, as divine Scripture is sufficient above all things, that there is no separate authoritative tradition outside of Scripture. Even more interesting, though, is Athanasius' testimony regarding the statement of the Nicene Bishops, that it is an exact statement or summary of the doctrine in divine Scripture. The use Athanasius finds for Councils in settling matters of orthodoxy is precisely that they are summaries of the doctrines found in Scripture, not that they are bearing out an independent authoritative tradition.
A two-source concept of revelation (Tradition II) can first be observed "in the writings of certain fourth-century church fathers. Such a view is strongly suggested in the writings of John Chrysostom, for example, and is possibly suggested in the writings of Basil and Augustine."[22] --> --> As it was already noted, at least in the case of Basil we can see from other writings clearly that he did not hold to a two-source view of revelation. Keith Mathison points out, that "there is good evidence, however, that neither Basil nor Augustine actually intended to teach a two-source view. Unfortunately, however, the hints of such a concept in the writings of these influential theologians ensured it a place in the thinking of the later medieval church."[23] --> -->
Medieval Developments – Tradition II
Though the later medieval church would develop a two-source concept of revelation, as Mathison write, "The general consensus of the early church remained the consensus throughout most of the middle ages…most Christian theologians continued to adhere to a form of Tradition I."[24] R.E. McNally agrees, writing that the "Early medieval man did not consider scripture and tradition as two separate and distinct receptacles in which God's revelation was preserved and through which it was transmitted."[25] --> -->
During the twelfth-century, a gradual rejection of allegorical hermeneutical methods of biblical interpretation occurred. As a result "Many medieval doctrines and practices that had been defended from Scripture on the basis of an allegorical method of interpretation were indefensible if Scripture was interpreted more literally. In order to defend the apostolicity of some of these doctrines and practices, a second source of apostolic revelation was posited."[26] The late medieval church questioned whether two separate and distinct sources of revelation might exist: Scripture and tradition. Tradition, it was thought, contained revealed truths not found in Scripture.[27]
Though argued against by Roman Catholics, the fourteenth-century theologian William of Ockham is credited for being the first to medieval theologian to define a fully developed two-source theory of revelation. The fourteenth century saw the parallel development of two concepts of tradition, Tradition I and Tradition II. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century needs to be understood as having occurred in the context of this ongoing debate.[28]
Reformation Developments – Clash of Tradition I & II
Classical Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther were not creating a new doctrine with a call to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Instead, to combat the apostate teaching and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, the classical Reformers called the church back to Tradition I, a one-source view of revelation that was to be interpreted in and by the church according to the ancient rule of faith as summarized in the Christian Creed.[29] --> -->
The classical Reformers emphatically rejected the dual-source view of special revelation held by the Roman Catholic Church. It was "at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, [that] Rome declared that the truth of God is found both in the Scriptures and in the tradition of the church."[30] --> --> The advocates of Tradition I and Tradition II had up to this point the two views had been debated since the twelfth century within the church, but this move by the Council of Trent widened the gap between the adherents of the two views. The call for the church to return to a one-source view of revelation, by classical Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, caused "their Roman Catholic opponents [to become] more adamant in their proclamation of Tradition II. Eventually the two concepts were no longer able to coexist within the same ecclesiastical communion. Also, at the same time that this debate was taking place, a more radical group of Reformers began to proclaim a new concept of tradition."[31] --> -->
The Radical Reformers & Solo Scriptura - Tradition 0
The radical Reformers, unlike the classical Reformers, took a very negative approach to all traditions, believing that Luther and Calvin had not gone far enough in their application of sola Scripura. The radical Reformers believed the classical Reformers were making a serious error in continuing to hold the creeds of the ancient church. The radical Reformers placed the private judgment of individual believers above the corporate judgment of the body of Christ. This view of tradition, called solo Scriptura or Tradition 0, posits that Scripture is not only the sole inspired and infallible authority, but that Scripture is the sole authority altogether. As Keith Mathison writes, "It is important to understand that two completely different views emerged from the Reformation, and that Tradition 0 was not the position held by such men as Martin Luther and John Calvin.[32] --> -->
Modern Roman Catholicism – Tradition III
As discussed briefly before, at the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church made the view of revelation described as Tradition II official church dogma, a view that persisted for roughly three hundred years. Since the mid eighteenth-century a new view of tradition has emerged within the Roman Catholic Church. Keith Mathison writes that
Rome is gradually moving toward a one-source concept of revelation, but the one source of revelation is the Roman magisterium. In practice, what this means is that whatever Rome now teaches is, by definition, the tradition of the church. This is, of course, the logical implication of the doctrine of papal infallibility, but it is also a virtual declaration of autonomy that places all authority in the hands of the 'magisterium of the moment.'[33]
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
The modern debate over the doctrine of sola Scriptura is often wrongly framed by those who hold to solo Scriptura, as a debate over Scripture versus tradition. In truth, we will all teach a concept of tradition. The real question, then, is which concept of tradition will we teach? Only the view of revelation held by the classical Reformers, the one-source view known as Tradition I, can make a plausible claim to be the teaching of the early church. The classical Reformers, using the slogan sola Scriptura, "insisted that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it was the final authoritative norm for doctrine and practice, that it was to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it was to be interpreted within the context of the rule of faith."[34] To understand the doctrine of sola Scriptura, each of those points of insistence must be examined separately.
Perfection of Scripture
Essentially, the perfection of Scripture refers to its completeness as a source of revelation. Conservatives on all sides of the debate would grant that Scripture, as the Word of God, is perfect in the sense of being inspired. However, "Proponents of Tradition II would deny that Scripture is perfect in the sense of its being complete and adequate source of revelation."[35] They would say that all of revelation is necessary for obedience to the law of God, but that there are two sources of revelation.
By saying that Scripture is perfect, the doctrine of sola Scriptura affirms "All the revelation that we need for salvation may be found in Scripture. It is a perfect and complete source of revelation for the Christian church."[36] --> -->
Inspiration of Scripture
The doctrine of sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture alone is the infallible and authoritative norm for Christian faith and practice, but it does not assert that Scripture is the only authority at all. That is the view held by the radical Reformers in the doctrine of solo Scriptura. "There are other authorities that are subordinate to Scripture, but Scripture is the only inspired and inherently infallible authority, and therefore it is the only final and authoritative norm."[37]
Infallibility of Scripture
Infallibility actually the inability to err. Infallibility entails inerrancy, the actual absence of error. Within conservative circles, whether Protestant or roman Catholic, all would agree to those premises, so the point will not be belabored. The difference come when we say that because Scripture alone is inspired or God-breathed, it alone is inherently infallible. As Mathison states his argument, "Scripture alone can plausibly claim full and complete inspiration; therefore, Scripture alone can plausibly claim full and complete infallibility and inerrancy."[38] (For more, see: Lemke, Biblical Hermeneutics, 158)
Authority of Scripture
As the God-breathed and infallible word of God, Scripture carries a unique authority. This unique authority is the absolute authority of God himself. The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that Scripture derives its existence and therefore its authority from the church.[39]
No man or church can claim to have an authority greater than or equal to that of God, as almighty God is by his very nature unique and sovereign. Since Scripture is the word of the uniquely sovereign and authoritative God, it carries all the authority of God himself. Though no church explicitly claims to have an authority equal to or greater than that of God himself, some churches do claim that they have authority equal to or greater than that of Scripture, God's very word. As Keith Mathison writes, "What these churches do not seem to understand is that a claim to greater authority than that of Scripture is a claim to greater authority than that of God. Such a claim is nothing short of blasphemy. If Scripture truly is the word of almighty God, then the issue of final authority is settled."[40]
John Calvin criticized the view that the authority of Scripture is owed to the authority of the church. In his book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes:
"For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent."[41]
The divine Traditions of the church, namely the writing of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles as Calvin points to, preceded the church. They are in fact the foundation of the church. Any stamp of authority by the church upon the Scriptures, that divine Tradition, is merely the due acknowledgment of it as the truth of God.
Supreme Normativity of Scripture
Another essential element of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is that the God breathed Scriptures stand as the supreme norm and standard for the faith and practice of the church, the norma absoluta. This must be the case if Scripture is the unique, final, and infallible authority, and carries with it the very authority of God himself. No other proposed norms or standards can claim such attributes for themselves. Neither the writings of the Fathers, or the creeds of the church, are God-breathed. Nor does the church speak with the inherent authority of God himself. As Mathison writes, "Scripture is absolutely unique in this respect, and it is for this reason that 'Scripture alone'—sola Scriptura—is the supreme norm and standard for the church's faith and practice."[42] --> -->
The Church
Another element of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is that concept that that Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the rule of faith. This is a major difference between the sola Scriptura of Tradition I and the solo Scriptura of Tradition 0. Mathison writes that "the doctrine of sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture is truth (John 17:17), and that the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). There is, therefore, a necessary relationship between the Spirit-inspired word of God and the Spirit-indwelt people of God."[43]
The assertion that Scripture is the only inspired and infallible authority does not rule out the necessity of lesser authorities. The church is such a secondary authority. The church is necessary because the Bible cannot preach itself., and the church is the only human agency with the authority and ability to speak. This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures themselves, as Mathison writes, "The church was established by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18); the church is given authority to teach and disciple the nations (Matt. 28:18-20); the church is the instrument through which God makes the truth of his word known (Eph. 3:10)."[44] --> -->
But what about the right and responsibility of the individual Christian to read and study Scripture? The rightful authority of the church does not remove that responsibility from the believer. While the Word of God, as we read and study Scripture, binds our individual consciences, church authority cannot rest on the individual judgment of each member of the church. This is a challenge to our modern sense of individualism. The corporate judgment of God's covenant community is not replaced by individual private judgments.[45]
The corporate judgment of church normally operates through those who have been given gifts of teaching and leadership in the church. The spiritual gifts of teaching and leadership to certain members bring with them a level of authority not shared by every member of the church. While the authority of the church is not an infallible authority like the Scriptures, it is still a real and binding authority. The reason that this authority has been given to the church is "in order that she may preserve the unity of the faith and reject the errors of heretics."[46] --> -->
Apostolic Rule of Faith and Other Creeds
The last elements of the doctrine of sola Scriptura are the creeds and the rule of faith, to which the doctrinal authority of the church is intimately connected. A proper doctrine of the authority of the church requires us to acknowledge both the communal nature of the work of interpretation, and that the community is not limited to the living, but instead encompasses all who have passed before us.[47] --> -->
The assertion that Scripture is self interpreting may be true for the most immediate aspects of the gospel, but a brief review of the history of biblical interpretation should be sufficient to demonstrate that the piling up of biblical date offers no guarantee of a faithful Scriptural interpretation, even less a Christian doctrine of God. As D.H. Williams writes, "Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church's teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties." [48] The issue at hand, as stated before, is not whether we will use tradition to interpret Scripture. The issue is then, which view of tradition will we use?[49] --> -->
As Mathison writes of the rule of faith, it "was a summary of apostolic doctrine that was preserved by the church, taught to new catechumens, and eventually inscripturated in complete form by the apostles in the canonical books of the New Testament." [50] This summary of the faith was eventually expressed in the writing of the early creeds of the church to combat heresy. The rule of faith functioned as a standard hermeneutical device for the early church. Heretics were recognizable because they did not interpret Scripture in the context of the summary of the Apostles teaching, the rule of faith. To say it another way, heretics do not interpret Scripture according to the Christian faith. [51]
Conclusion
Scripture can only be handled rightly and responsibly by the church, in reference to the historic Tradition of the church, as summarized in the rule of faith and Apostles Creed. Outside of that reference, "any heretical notion can arise taking sanction under a 'back to the Bible' platform. The early church was only too well aware that a Scripture-only principle (no less than biblical inerrancy) is no guarantor of orthodox Christianity." [52]The issue before us today is not whether we will adhere to a view of tradition, but instead, which view of tradition we will hold.
As Tevye, a character from Fiddler on the Roof said:"Without our traditions our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on a roof!" [53]
--> -->
[1]Fiddler on the Roof, DVD, prod. and dir. Norman Jewison, 179 min. (Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1971).
[2]R.C. Sproul, The Establishment of Scripture, in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995), 70-71.
[3]Ibid., 70-71.
[4] --> -->R.C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura!, 70-71.
[6]Ibid., 33.
[7]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation : essays in late medieval and early Reformation thought (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1992), 280.
[8]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33.
[9]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation, 280.
[10]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 32-33.
[11]Ibid., 33.
[12]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation, 280.
[13]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33.
[14]Heiko A. Oberman, The dawn of the Reformation, 280.
[15]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33.
[16]D.H. Williams, Reviving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicous Protestants (Grand Rapids: Wm. b. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1999), 230.
[17]R.C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura!, 72.
[18]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 33-34.
[19]Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. VIII, Letter CLXXXIX. To Eustathius the Physician.. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cxc.html. (accessed November 5, 2006).
[20]Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. IV, St. Augustine To the Bishops of Egypt.. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xvii.ii.i.html. (accessed November 5, 2006).
[21]Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. IV, Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing company), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxii.ii.i.html. (accessed November 5, 2006).
[22]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 34.
[23]Ibid., 34.
[24]Ibid., 34.
[25]Robert E. McNally, S.J, Christian Tradition and the Early Middle Ages, in Perspectives on Scripture and Tradition, ed. Joseph F. Kelly (Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, Inc, 1976), 40-41.
[26]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 34.
[27]Robert E. McNally, S.J, Christian Tradition and the Early Middle Ages , 40-41.
[28]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 34.
[29]Ibid., 36.
[30]R.C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura!, 70.
[31]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 36.
[32]Ibid., 37.
[33]Ibid., 37-38.
[34]Ibid., 40-41.
[35]Ibid., 42.
[36]Ibid., 42.
[37]Ibid., 44.
[38]Ibid., 44.
[39]Ibid., 44.
[40]Ibid., 47.
[41] --> -->John Calvin, institutes="" of="" the="" christian="" religion="">, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), Chap. 7, Sec. 2, HTML http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book1/bk1ch07.html#two.htm. (accessed Novemeber 1, 2006).
[42]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 47-48.
[43]Ibid., 48.
[44]Ibid., 48-49.
[45]Ibid., 49-50.
[46]Ibid., 48-49.
[47]Stephen R. Holmes, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology (Great Britain: Baker Academic, 2002), 5.
[48]D.H. Williams, Reviving the Tradition, 233-34.
[49]Ibid., 233-34.
[50]Keith A. Mathison, After Darkness, Light, 50.
[51]Ibid., 50.
[52]D.H. Williams, Reviving the Tradition, 234.
[53]Fiddler on the Roof, DVD, prod. and dir. Norman Jewison, 179 min. (Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1971).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)