Evangelicals and the Problem of Scripture

For those of you who have suffered through my various cryptic Facebook and twitter posts, well, the time has come. In this post, I will be highlighting the issues and questions surrounding the inerrancy debate within evangelicalism. In thinking through this important (but not essential issue), I’ve been pouring over the multitude of lectures on Youtube. Mostly stuff by The Gospel Coalition and Together 4 the Gospel, including a recent conference held by John MacArthur focused exclusively on inerrancy. As it may not yet be obvious, I have profound disagreements with TGC and T4G and John MacArthur on a multitude of issues and a multitude of attitudes, but I consider them to be brothers in Christ, and so on and so forth. It is simply a matter of common courtesy as far as I am concerned, at least from me to them.

In listening to these various lectures, which include mainstays such as Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, and others [1], I was struck by the repeated emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture as a foundational position for the Christian faith.  This, they said repeatedly, lay at the heart of Christian faith.[2] One, I forget who exactly, said that if he found one error, he would cease preaching the Gospel.

I was struck both by his honesty and his rigidity. I recall a friend saying roughly the same thing, and I proceeded to tell him that he was no longer an inerrantist. Confused, he asked why; I pointed him to the longer ending in Mark (16:9-20), and asked him why this was still in Scripture even though we know it was not in the original text. Dumbfounded, he sputtered for a second and I then told him, “Its okay. It isn’t an error in transmission as much as it is a problem with translation. Sal’ good, mate.” But the question lingered. I also wrote a bit about the story in John 7:52-8:11:

Various modern English translations confirm in footnotes that John 7:53-8:11 is an interpolation. The CEB notes that “critical editions of the Gk New Testament do not contain 7:53-8:11” and the NRSV supports this with “most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.” Metzger explains that John’s pericope is missing from the “most early and diverse manuscripts” (Metzger, 187). There are external factors besides its manuscript omission: early church fathers don’t quote it until the twelfth century, showing a lack of awareness of the text in question (Metzger, 188) and that it also appears in multiple locations through John’s Gospel as the NRSV footnote states. This shows that scribes were uncertain about its placement within the narrative. The text’s addition may have been due to a scribe’s belief in the truthfulness of the account, and because of this they had little issue in trying to place it within the narrative. Coupled with this, the story is moving and shows Jesus in a consistent and compassionate light (c.f. his interactions with the unmarried Samaritan woman in John 4). After all, Metzger acknowledges, “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (Metzger, 188) as a self-contained story. It may have happened, but John in his original Gospel did not include it.

It is not my intent to point to the various problems within Scripture—and I’m leaving a gaping hole right there with the word “problems”—but rather to try and steer the conversation towards a more fruitful dynamic.

A key question I have begun to ask about this question is this: “so what?” My long-suffering wife will attest to this, as I kept her up for a night, using this question as a guide to further my post-workout ramblings.

Scripture is inerrant. So what? So is a spelling book, or a scientific textbook that points out what the sky is blue. So what? I don’t consider the color of the sky to be a particularly moving or insightful key into how I worship God. The sky, after all, could be red or purple in your world. A fact does not necessitate authority. The fact of the sky being blue in my world does not factor at all into instigating an authoritative response.

Scripture is inspired. So what? Joseph Smith claimed he was inspired. So have many people in this world, including many cultic figures. The Koran could be inerrant; almost all Christians would, however, not choose the Koran as their supreme authority in faith and practice. The standard proof text for inerrancy/inspiration/authority is 2 Tim. 3:16, with the hapax legomenon θεόπνευστος occurring in relation to πᾶσα γραφὴ. God “breathed” all Scripture. Gordon Fee notes, “in doing so, [Paul] is not offering a theory of inspiration; he is, rather, reflecting the common tradition of Judaism (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21).”[3] Church fathers (Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia) do not seem to specify if this is directed toward the Old Testament (what Paul usually means by γραφὴ), and the second question in this little question has to do with aspect: given that the canon debate has been largely settled by the time they are writing, are the Fathers justified in including both Testaments in this if they do so? Most likely, Paul is writing about the Old Testament and not his own epistles, which is the opposite of what many modern theologians seem to assert. This—again—is not to undermine inerrancy conceptually, but to push us towards a better framework. Or attempt to frame a better framework. It is indeed getting late now. 

2 Tim. 3:16—according to historical-grammatical rules of interpretation set out by ICBI—cannot be interpreted in the manner most ICBI users desire. Simply stringing along biblical words like, well, "word" will not help matters, nor will reductionistic propositions like "God does not lie," etc.

It seems to me, in speaking about Paul, that he assumed his own authority as an apostle of the risen Christ, and this gave him insight and power to, say, excommunicate a man “having” (ἔχειν) his stepmother (1 Cor. 5:1-5). He also believed he had the authority "to command” (ἐπιτάσσειν: present active infinitive: 1:8) Philemon to free Onesimus, especially because he is “having boldness in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων). Paul’s authority seems to come from his relationship to the risen Jesus, and this determines how he acts towards fellow brothers and sisters. His authority comes from seeing the risen Jesus, thus confirming the Gospel of God: the resurrection of the dead, found only in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15).

Scripture and her multitude of authors—Paul, the Psalter, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, First/Second/Third Isaiah, Peter and the epistles written in his name—all seem to assume their own authority in their own inspired way, not on the basis of their own infallibility or inerrancy, but rather on what has been revealed to them. They know they are broken, violent, rash people. It seems, instead, that we ought to focus on the nature of what it means to have an authoritative text that speaks into our lives and informs our faith and practice. Peter not writing 2 Peter does not diminish the authority of 2 Peter; rather, it contextualizes it and forces us to re-conceive of how we read 2 Peter in light of the Gospels and in light of the history of canon.

Given the nature of pseudepigraphy in the New Testament (something I am assuming for the sake of argument), how is inerrancy to respond to fairly convincing arguments that Paul did not write Ephesians and the Pastorals, and that Peter did not write 2 Peter? If these are true, what then of inerrancy? These texts and their authorship would not challenge something as crucial as the resurrection of Jesus. So perhaps our focus is a bit askance.

The Koran could be error-free. The Koran could be inspired in some sense. However, having both does not give it a lick of authority over my life and how I practice as an evangelical Christian.

So it seems we should conceive of a more evangelical method of interpretation of Scripture, one that pays true attention to the details of disparate authors and contexts, and one that actually treats the text with full authority in our lives and in the lives of others.

Beyond “so what”, why does Scripture have authority in my life, your life, and the Church’s life? I will offer three short theses as to why I consider Scripture to be fully authoritative in my life and why this discussion needs to happen.

1. Scripture most often is confirmed by history and by the methods and philosophy of history. Hidden within this is my own assumption that the world is an odd place and odd things can happen – like a man dying and rising from the dead, revealing Jesus Christ to be the Messiah he said he was. If this is historically true, then this whole resurrection thing means my life is more than a blip on this pale blue dot.
    
2. The ethics of the New Testament—especially in Paul—regarding women and slaves and poverty are so progressive that the church seems unable to keep up with him. The fact that Paul goes against so much of his ancient patriarchal culture means something is up, and that he had a radical shift in thinking—based on his experience with the risen Jesus.
    
3. My own experience is confirmed and challenged by Scripture. In struggling with sexual sin ever since I was eight years old, Scripture has repeatedly challenged me to improve and repent and grow and mature; it has confirmed that my experience was hollow and grim, and has shown me a better Way. In changing my habits and mind, I've seen tremendous growth and you probably have too. That would not be without the challenge of my wife and Scripture.

I do not claim to have this figured out, and it is highly likely I could embrace inerrancy in the future. I am reading through several works and delving back into the Gospels before this quarter begins, and my friend Jarrod has been pushing Vanhoozer down my ear for the past few weeks, so it is entirely possible.

But, for the sake of intellectual honesty and for the sake of the future of our Catholic Church, concern yourselves with the authority of the text first. That seems to be where the main rub is. If fully authoritative, how then do you live? If not, what then?

*Nick reserves the right to change his mind if he thinks he has written something dumb*
 
In Christ,
NQ

[1] It goes without saying that I disagree with all of these scholars when it comes to the ordination of women, the extent of the value of Reformed readings of Scripture, the genre of Genesis, and a whole host of other more interesting topics. This, of course, it not due to any level of disrespect I have towards these men, but because a theological degree or three does not make a man or woman free.

[2] I was also bemused and dismayed by their repeated comments about Fuller Theological Seminary and the seminary’s history with inerrancy; rather than engage, they dismissed and moved on. See George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism.

[3] Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 279.

Christ the One and Only, A Review

In thinking about world religions, one is forced to recognize the tensions inherent in confessing a particularistic faith in the marketplace of ideas. This tension is especially true for many in western evangelicalism, and the current work—edited by Sung Wook Chung—is an attempt to grapple with the uniqueness of Christ in a pluralistic milieu. Since the thesis of this work is to illustrate Christ’s uniqueness in relation to world religions (x-xi), the essays that most illustrate this thesis will be reviewed.

Elias Dantas offers the initial essay entitled “The Incarnation of Christ and its Implications to the Ministry and Mission of the Church” where the topic under consideration concerns the incarnation and its implications for our modern world. Dantas rightly stresses the importance of this doctrine and is correct to place so much emphasis upon the virgin birth: it is, after all, a part of the historic Christian faith. He then goes on to offer seven assessments, each one indeed dire and problematic—though some more than others. For example, he asserts that the denial of the virgin birth leads to the denial of all miracles and into liberalism (4), and this does not follow. One could affirm the mythic nature of Christ’s birth and passionately affirm the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ (c.f. Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 141-150). One would be hard pressed to place someone like Pannenberg in the liberal category on par with one who denies miracles! While Dantas’ passion is well placed and his emphasis is certainly noteworthy, he is quick to castigate those with whom he disagrees and he seems most interested in reflecting a highly dogmatic point of view instead of the intended ecumenical nature of the project as a whole—especially when he quotes almost exclusively male and Reformed voices.

Clark Pinnock takes us next through “The Uniqueness of the Life and Teachings of Jesus” and by means of introduction, he points to a gap in the Apostle’s Creed where there is nothing said about the life of the Messiah. Intending to fill this gap, Pinnock surveys the various controversies in the Gospels surrounding Christ’s birth, charges of illegitimacy, ministry, place in society and some of his theological contributions. Pinnock tells us that Jesus uniquely emphasized the Kingdom of God and coupled this with his emphasis on justice, on “a God who gives priority to the ethical above the cultic” (30). Pinnock offers us a compelling glimpse into the mystery of Christ as he related to a world that was both ‘other’ and ‘one another.’ This Jesus “embodied what he had announced” (33) and thus his life was unique compared to the religious leaders of his day.

Beginning with the historical context of Scripture, Graham Tomlin surveys Scripture’s early reflections on the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross and especially St. Paul and Corinthians. The uniqueness of the cross is not in the manner of death, but in how the early Christians applied meaning to the death of the Messiah, which makes the meaning of Jesus’ death significant and confounding. Much of Tomlin’s essay centers on Luther and Blaise Pascal (who is a surprising addition). He places Pascal alongside St. Paul and shows how both of these theologians had to react to the various worldviews of their day, and this is applicable to the modern Church, as she must grapple with the question of those not in Christ and those who seek a more pluralistic inclusion of other religions. The final simple comparison between Muhammad and Jesus is compelling: “both knew the struggle of being a persecuted and misunderstood prophet…” (61), and yet Jesus chose the path of nonresistance, making him distinct from Muhammad—thus the similarities seem to end where Golgotha begins. Tomlin’s historical assessments are certainly helpful and necessary, but one is left wondering where the ancient church fathers and mothers fit into his framework, as he jumps from Paul over them straight to Luther.

All of Christian orthodoxy depends upon the resurrection of Jesus. So contends Gabriel Fackre, and his essay is intended as a grand theological narrative sweep across the entirety of Scripture. Those who share a love of storytelling and cinema will be delighted by this unique structure. He starts with the stories of creation and fall, moves through the patriarchs of the Old Testament, and lands upon Jesus of Nazareth, who is the intersection of history. What makes Fackre’s contribution unique is the structure he utilizes, namely the great themes of systematic theology: creation, incarnation, and the last things to name a few. This is not unlike the structure of a film: acts one through three, culminating in the grand finale of the last things. Those familiar with these grand topics will not doubt enjoy the novel arrangement and Fackre’s presentation, though he breaks no new theological ground and does not quite address the central topic of Christ’s uniqueness in resurrection. For instance, resurrection was not an uncommon belief in the world of Jesus, and exploring ancient concepts such as reincarnation and karma could have helped explore this needed issue.

The sensitive topic of Jewish/Christian relations is the subject of Ellen Charry’s work and her words are hard-hitting and frustrating. For instance, “Paul had to pervert scriptural texts” (148) in his attempt to bring the Gentiles into Christ. This is frustrating because the scholarly debate between Paul and his Jewish background is extraordinarily complex from a historical point of view and Charry shows little awareness of the complexities of this. To describe Paul’s interpretiv

e methods in terms of ‘perversion’ is unfortunately distracting. Paul’s method of interpretation, though idiosyncratic, does not seem to be far from the Jewish mainstream (c.f. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul). Paul is certainly not above criticism, however well deserved, but Charry’s essay often takes the form of harsh criticism of Christianity, and the tone and rhetoric are indeed a shock compared to the rest of the volume. While one cannot ignore the one problem of Jewish/Christian relations, Charry answers the ‘uniqueness of Christ’ question in purely negative terms (i.e. Christians aren’t Jews) and appears to interpret Paul in the least attractive light possible. She does not mention the recent proposals of the New Perspective and their works could help alleviate some apprehension regarding Christianity and Judaism, especially as regards the law. The work of James D.G. Dunn could have been of further assistance but no NPP proponent is considered. A further problem is that Charry cites few historical sources to bolster many of her historical claims, most of which are not substantiated or annotated. In short, this essay is more polemic than is necessary, making it stand out negatively in comparison to the other essays.

The spread of Islam in the modern world demands an essay like Ng Kam Weng’s. He highlights the similar views of Jesus found both in Islam and Christianity (i.e. both view Jesus as a prophet), and surveys the vast data found in the Quran regarding Jesus and his role in history: while Jesus is important, he is thoroughly subordinate in Muhammad (196), pushing Jesus away from such high Christology texts such as John 1:1 and 14. No prophet is ever said to be “in the form of God” (c.f. Phil. 2:6) and one wonders where the writings of Paul fit into Islam’s conception of Christ’s identity with the Father. The singular strength of this chapter is Weng’s charity towards the faith of Islam.

KK Yeo’s essay is remarkable in its tackling of the theme love as a means to connect Confucius (ren) and Paul (agape). Concise, intimate and genuine, Yeo’s work is a breathe of sincere ecumenical air. While an evangelical, he is dedicated to teaching the “law of Christ” as mutual bearing of one another’s burdens, seizing upon Galatians 6:2 (though more could be mentioned, c.f. Eph. 5:2, 21). Love is a term that has gone largely untouched in this volume and Yeo states unequivocally that “to be human is to be bound to God” (218), pushing both concepts together in a way that does not minimize the differences. What makes this applicable is that Yeo concludes on the practicality of his findings, finding that the love of neighbor is a key ethical grounding.

The editor Sung Wook Chung has the final word, and he further presses the “points of contact” (233) between Buddhism and Christianity. After discussing their differences—the doctrine of creation, where Christians affirm an actual creation, whereas Buddhism affirms an eternal universe—Chung points to four main similarities, with one of them being suffering. This is a key Christian concept as well, as the suffering of Christ on the cross will attest, and this has practical implications. Suffering is an unfortunate reality in our world and thus both faiths are in some sense yoked together in this reality. This finds its application in that we seek the similarities among one another, and do this in love and reverence for Christ.

In summation, Pinnock, Sung Wook Chung, and Yeo offer essays that sparkle with verve, creativity, and clarity. However, there is no engagement with patristic sources and liberation or feminist theologies, thus the uniqueness of Christ is not fully explored from an ecumenical perspective. It rightly affirms the uniqueness of Christ yet does not fully exhibit a consistent ecumenical spirit in part because of unnecessarily polemic arguments (Dantas/Charry). The volume also lacks a Scripture and subject index, making navigation difficult. Ultimately, although the volume has some marvelous essays, it contains too many caveats for a whole-hearted endorsement.

NQ

Paul on Slavery (Part V)

PAUL: The Pastorals

Titus 2:9-10

The author (questions of authorship aside) begins this section by telling Titus to “teach what is consistent with sound [healthy] doctrine”(2:1). He goes with gender (2:3-5),[1] younger men (2:6-8),[2] and then to slaves.[3] The slaves are told not to give satisfaction by “not talking back and “pilfering.”[4] Tellingly, the institution of slavery isn’t rooted in creation or a divine ordinance. Instead, they are to be ‘attractive’ (κοσμῶσιν, adornment, ornate) to their masters for the doctrine of God our Savior.

The follow up shows an impartial salvation that has appeared to all,[5] training them to renounce the world and live in ways that please God (v11-14). No one is to look down on us (v15).

1 Timothy 1:10

In this vice list (which begins in v9 and ends in v11), the author implicates many people as a result of their actions. This is in conjunction with the 10 Commandments. The ‘murderers’ (6th Commandment), ‘adulterers and sodomites’ (7th Commandment), and ‘slave traders’ (8th Commandment).[6] Paul lists these as “contrary to sound doctrine” (v10). What is curious in this brief analysis is that Paul has in mind Exodus 21:16, for which the penalty for “anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him…”[7] is death. This is coordinate with Paul’s Jewish unease with slavery, and indicates that he does consider some form of ‘slave-dealing’ as contrary to healthy doctrine.[8] Paul most probably still has false teachers in mind with this list.[9] While not entirely conclusive, this brief indictment shows that Paul viewed the trading of human beings as incompatible to “sound doctrine.”

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Why are slaves who are under the “yoke of slavery”[10] their masters[11] regard them as “worthy of all honor?” Simply stated, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.[12] While it is difficult to swallow this admonition, it is still important to realize that Paul is concerned with the church’s standing in society[13] (1 Tim 2:2 3:7). That is, if those in Christ haul off their yokes, this would be seen as a rebellion within the Greco-Roman context.[14]

Instead of a rebellion, Christian slaves are told to serve their Christian masters “all the more.”[15] Paul’s side comment[16] about all being “members of the church” implies a desire for unity within the community.

SUMMATION: Paul & Slavery

Paul - and his predecessors - in some sense significantly undermined the institution of slavery during his time. His influence upon subsequent traditions, who ransomed slaves, cannot be ignored. The terrible tragedy is that people would misuse Paul to shame the honor and dignity of African-Americans, especially in the name of God. While Paul can certainly be misused, we must remember that for his time, Paul was doing his best with an old world. While it is not enough for some of us, I do think it meant the world to people like Onesimus.

NQ

[1] This “submission” is not grounded in creation, respect or the husband’s authority. Rather, they are told to submit so that “the word of God may not be discredited.” This pattern of not bringing dishonor to God is a repeated emphasis throughout 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.
[2] Again, the reason is that an opponent “will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us” (v8).
[3] As with 1 Timothy 1:10, masters are given no exhortation.
[4] Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 190, notes that “slaves were often entrusted with buying goods and also often had a degree of private ownership.” This shows that if slaves had a degree of freedom that they were not to use it against their owners. Or, even, if they had no freedom, to still not steal.
[5] Notably, women and slaves are included in this.
[6] Fee, 46.
[7] “ἀνδραποδισταῖς”; see BDAG 76, LSJ 127-8. Philip Payne pointed this in out. Man and Woman, One in Christ, 274. Gordon Fee points out that many early rabbis considered the 8th Commandment to be opposing slave dealing. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 49 additional notes 1:9-10.
[8] Much could be be said about the ἀρσενοκοίταις but that will have to wait.
[9] The notation of sexual improprieties and murderers could be a hint towards the activities of the various cults in the area. It is very likely that prostitutes and priests were close in the temples. While this does not excuse homosexual practice, it does show that Paul has such things in mind as a reason to indict them.
[10] Galatians 5:1.
[11] This would be Christian slaves and Christian owners, though the owner may not be a Christian. Christian slaves would likely be told to submit to their masters, regardless of religious affiliation.
[12] Fee suggests that slaves are still viewed as still “in the old social order.” 137.
[13] Indeed, that may be a key hermeneutical device to understand these household codes, especially in regards to slavery. Perhaps these are viewed as ad hoc. A key argument against this is that Paul is already an ad hoc theologian. While certainly true, an ad hoc admonition can still be applicable to a relevant modern situation.
[14] If history is any indication, the failed slave rebellion of Spartacus shows that a slave uprising would be crushed, and anyone who associated with it would likely suffer the same fate.
[15] Most probably, the masters here are Christians. The shift to the specific would indicate this, especially if masters in v1 are said to be “worthy of honor” so that God may not be blasphemed. If a Christian slave was disobedient or acting in a dishonorable way, it would follow that such slave masters would not view their religion in the highest opinion.
[16] Fee, 138, calls 6:2a an “ad hoc reason for this short section.”

John Locke & Sacred Scripture

The posts that I will be setting up over the course of ... however long it takes ... will be about the Father of Classical Liberalism, as he pertains to theology. As my few readers know, I'm quite interested in the topics of theological anthropology and the debate about final punishment. Locke talked about both ideas and I wrote a paper about it. Its limited and fairly short, but I find Locke to be continually fascinating. 

So, here is to those posts. Whenever they appear.

Written in 1695, Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity offers us a glimpse into his perspective regarding the nature of final punishment. He begins with the assertion, “If upon a fair and unprejudiced examination, thou findest I have mistaken the sense and tenour of the Gospel, I beseech thee, as a true Christian, in the spirit of the Gospel, (which is that of charity)…set me right, in the doctrine of salvation.”[1] As with his political and philosophical concepts, Locke models charity over and against dogmatism. Indeed, Locke appears to affirm the “divine inspiration of the New Testament, [which] is matter of faith, and necessary to be believed by all Christians…”[2] When he offers his paraphrase and exegesis of St. Paul’s epistles[3], he believed that they appear to him “very plain, intelligible, and instructive”[4] though Locke is certainly quick to admit when he doesn’t understand St. Paul’s work. He confesses to not understanding 1 Cor. 11:10, a passage that many today still do not comprehend. Because Locke is acutely aware of his own limitations, he can acknowledge that Greek is “a language dead many ages since.”[5]  

He calls Paul “a man of quick thought, and warm temper, mighty well versed in the writings of the Old Testament, and full of the doctrine of the New.”[6] Curiously, he has some insightful awareness of textual criticism in the Pauline epistles, noting with disdain that the division of chapters and verses has rendered Paul so “chopped and minced, and as they are now printed, stand so broken and divided, that not only the common people take the verses usually for distinct aphorisms; but even men of more advanced knowledge, in reading them, lose very much of the strength and force of the coherence…”[7] In stating that he has “sought the true meaning [of Scripture], as far as my poor abilities would reach,”[8] Locke continually emphasized his limitation, and didn’t desire to be exalted beyond his own status. His commitment to Scripture is not to be underscored nor dismissed. Within evangelicalism, there is a spoken acknowledgment that divergent views can fall within the family of beliefs, with respectful disagreement hopefully being triumphant over sectarianism. As evangelical Christians, our commitment is to Scripture.[9]  

Indeed, Locke expressed a similar view when he said “For if I blindly…take the Pope’s interpretation of the Sacred Scripture, without examining whether it be Christ’s meaning; it is the Pope I believe in, and not in Christ.”[10] Because Christ has given John Locke the bible, Locke can then believe in Christ. Scripture and that which is contained within are therefore reasonable in the eyes of the Father of Classical Liberalism. 

---

[1] John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity, 7.

[2] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 191.

[3] Locke’s exegesis of St. Paul was published after his death. His writings cover Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians. He doesn’t address Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philippians or Philemon. While the authorship of several of these epistles is debated, Locke doesn’t comment on their exclusion nor does he provide reasons for accepting the Pauline authorship of Ephesians.

[4] John Locke, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, iii.

[5] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, iv.

[6] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, v.

[7] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, vii.

[8] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, xxi

[9] Cf. The Evangelical Theological Society (partial) statement of faith: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” See also Fuller Theological Seminary: “Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine self-disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They are to be interpreted according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to the Lord who speaks through them in living power” and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School: “As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged. Therefore, it is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.”

[10] A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul, xxii.

Roger Olson and Al Mohler, Evangelicalism and the Death Penalty

http://i0.wp.com/lds.erictbenoitauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/death_penalty.jpg

I originally prefaced this fascinating discussion with 'two of my favorite theologians...' But, I cannot remain impartial. In the dialogue, while I don't necessarily end up where Olson does, I favor his argument. That said, in terms of simple influence, both men wield enough influence within evangelicalism to sway (or cement!) popular opinion.

I find pacifism to be a difficult stance to maintain in light of the modern world. I do find the death penalty to be difficult to maintain in light of the tension of putting potentially innocent people to death. That tension drives me to maintain some sense of neutrality on the issue. For those of you who know me, I don't always end up in neutral territory (my thoughts on final punishment or women in ministry), so please don't take my neutrality as a lack of courage or insight. I'm simply quiet on the issue because, well, I don't know enough and I don't feel comfortable taking sides in such a complex issue.

That said, enjoy the discussion. I did. Well. I kinda did.

Al Mohler:

The death penalty was explicitly grounded in the fact that God made every individual human being in his own image, and thus an act of intentional murder is an assault upon human dignity and the very image of God.
 
In the simplest form, the Bible condemns murder and calls for the death of the murderer. The one who intentionally takes life by murder forfeits the right to his own life.

Roger Olson:

I find Mohler’s defenses of capital punishment weak at best. The Old Testament “clearly calls for” many things—including capital punishment for a broad range of offenses including adolescent rebellion against parents. Certainly for idolatry. Does Mohler think we, as a whole society, should then expand the death penalty for all the offenses for which it is called for in the Old Testament? I doubt it. That makes his appeal to the Old Testament extremely weak.

Mohler seems to believe that IF the Bible calls for something American government should practice it. That’s a huge leap off the pages of the Old Testament to modern, secular government. He speaks disparagingly of secular government. Does he want a return to theocracy? If not, he should explain how his argument is consistent with a rejection  of “Christian Reconstructionist” theocracy.

--Nick

Pulse: How We View The Bible (Guest Post by Brandan Robertson)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue?

The issue of how we approach the Bible in general. 

For me as an evangelical, I affirm the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and see it as the highest guide on all matters concerning faith and practice. But we need to grapple with what is the best way to approach and deal with the Bible. We have generally been handed two options: the literal approach, believing that every event and statement recorded in the Bible is scientifically, historically, geographically, and absolutely true in the modern sense of the word or a rejection of the Bible as a reliable guide for anything. Neither of these approaches works for the new generation of Christians. Most of us are ready to accept things like the fact of evolution and many of us want to embrace a hermeneutical framework that allows for egalitarianism to exist within our churches. But most of us have been told that to do these things we are either “selling out” or that we have to disregard the Bible as our authority all together.

Neither option is healthy. Neither option gets us anywhere.

If we don’t begin to look into history and try to find a better way to approach the Bible, we are going to see divisions continue to spring up and more and more injustice committed in the name of “the Bible”. Many support war, anti-environmental, anti-homosexual etc. sentiments with Biblical passages based on a skewed literal hermeneutic. Likewise, many Christians disregard the Bible and are embracing any new and colorful thing that comes their way. These postures will destroy the faith. Want proof? Look at the last 500 years since the Protestant Reformation.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

I think there is no doubt that we are all engaging with this issue. But the reality is, many of us don’t have a framework to engage this other than the two postures I mentioned earlier. Derek Flood, a young budding theologian, does an awesome job understanding and interpreting scripture in a serious, literal, but not fundamentalist way. So does N.T. Wright (who was born in the wrong generation).

Karl Barth and folks from the Neo Orthodox perspective also bring a fresh perspective to the table that I think our generation can relate to. Folks like The Gospel Coalition (whom I love) are unfortunately rehashing a fundamentalist approach to the Bible that isn’t very helpful but because of their popularity among millennial is being embraced. The answer to this issue is not to rehash the same old answers from the past 200 years. We need to stretch further forward and reach farther back in order to get a fresh and renewed way of dealing with Scripture. Scoffed, Edwards, Owens, and Calvin just aren’t cutting it anymore. We need some Clement and Chrysostom along with, dare I say, J.R. Daniel Kirk and Derek Flood.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

We just need to be open. We need to work on not being so sectarian, so defensive. We need to be willing to rethink, reform, and renew our faith. (and that’s not just a shameless plug for the Revangelical movement). Until we can begin, with epistemological humility, to admit that we may not have the right way or the best way and begin to listen to traditions beyond our own, then we will never be able to address any of the pressing issues that face our generation. We need to listen. To learn. And to discern with grace what is best and true. If we can’t learn from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, and Fundamentalist streams concerning hermeneutical approaches to scripture, then we are doomed to never see any change and instead see increased division and hostility.

I was recently having a conversation with an Evangelical friend of mine who comes from a fundamentalist background. I was suggesting that Evolution could be reconciled with the Genesis narrative. After a half an hour of discussion, he finally said something to the effect of, “You know what, I am a black and white guy! And I think you’re a heretic. Not the kind who is going to hell, but the kind that is teaching falsehoods.” I understand where he is coming from. Many of us have been taught a view of the Bible that has been fenced off with the warning “If you change this, you lose everything.” That kind of rhetoric is absurd, untrue, and stunts the movement of God in his Church. I used to believe that. I used to believe that our way was the only way. But that’s just not the case. Things aren’t as black and white as we want to make them. And our approach to the Bible cannot be reduced by modernism to simply either “everything is factually true in every regard” or “nothing is factual and is complete fiction.”

Neither is good. Neither is faithful. Neither helps anyone in the long run.

I hope that as we continue to discuss these topics as a generation, we will see new life spring up. I pray that walls will come down. I pray that we will grow closer to Jesus. And I pray that we would be pulled by the Spirit of God ever forward to fresh and new ways and ever backwards towards tried and true ways- living in that sacred and divine tension.

Brandan Robertson is a theology student at Moody Bible Institute, a blogger, podcaster, aspiring minister, and dreamer behind The (Re)vangelical movement.

You can find him on the web, twitter and facebook.

Clarity, Spirals and Hermeneutics

The debates within evangelicalism are now beginning to boil to this stock-broth reduction:

Scripture is clear. . .

I was listening to a podcast segment on Unbelievable? where the topic centered around the 'Religious Right' and whether or not it was 'wrong.' I appreciated the program, not because I necessarily agreed with the ideas expressed but because it shone a bright light on two important factors.

Those two factors were brought out vividly by a right-wing Christian who proof texted Scripture like a bat out of Tartarus to prove capitalism, and by Brian McLaren. The right-winger would espouse the clarity of Scripture to prove his point, and Brian would undermine the right-wingers clarity of Scripture by allowing the man his opinion but saying people disagree.

Those two things:

One would assert over and over that his view was "biblical" and "clear" as a means of ending the discussion before it had a chance to really begin. I will grant that some topics in Scripture are clear, but many of them aren't. Thus the spiral and lack of clarity.

The other factor was the only response Brian McLaren could make was to simply disagree. Which was fine and Brian was a gentleman about it, but nevertheless I wish that things weren't just boiled down to simply a disagreement in abstract silence. The spiral of hermeneutics is washed down to simply a disagreement and that is that.

Now I grant that disagreements aren't necessarily a bad thing. As someone who does, however, tend towards theological realism, I find that most disagreements are centered around flattening interpretations to accommodate some views and exclude others. In short, while I don't think Scripture at all teaches Capitalism, I really wish more progressive Christians would simply stand up, say that the argument is bad and give really good reasons why it isn't.

I should offer a concluding remark and clarification; I didn't distinguish between salvific and non-salvific issues. What one thinks about the age of the earth has no bearing on one's salvation. But one can be dead wrong.

So, let's make a point to make better arguments (conservatives) and actually give better biblical arguments (progressives). Let's avoid black and white thinking where color is needed, and let's avoid pat answers. The truth usually sucks and I hate believing in it, but the universe is what it is regardless whether or not I want it to stop spinning.

There. I picked on both enough to know that I'm right and that is the clear sober truth.

Psych. :)

--Nick

Gender and the Modern Church

 I found this post by Dr. Craig Keener, and while I don't agree with everything, I found a lot of value in his writing.

Keener:

Sometimes more traditional interpreters have accused those of us who follow this approach of dishonoring the Bible. This accusation, however, misrepresents the debate's real crux: how one should apply the Bible. After all, the prophets, Jesus and Paul all reapplied some earlier biblical principles in new circumstances; addressing a new situation, Paul, for example, adds an explicit exception to Jesus's teaching about divorce. It is therefore biblical as well as pastorally sensitive to consider how we apply texts.

Moreover, the issue involves how we can apply the Bible consistently. Most of those who oppose women's ordination do not follow biblical instructions to greet one another with holy kisses or wear head coverings in church. Most recognize that these were cultural expressions of principles (such as friendly greetings) that may be applied differently in different cultures. Certainly most churches do not take up offerings for the Jerusalem church every Sunday (1 Corinthains 16:1-3) and most Bible readers do not feel compelled to go to Troas, get Paul's cloak and try to take it to him (2 Timothy 4:13). When they neglect these instructions, they do not see themselves as disobeying the Bible. They simply recognize that we need to take into account the situations the biblical writers addressed, before extracting larger principles. That is not only how we read the Bible but how we learn from any wisdom originally written in the past. Nearly all communication uses a language and some cultural setting!

For the original, enjoy it here.

--Nick

To What End Hell? A Brief Discourse

I think the most interesting part of the entire "hell" debate is how often everything devolves into proof texts and theological quandries. Specifically, "people choose to go to hell" or "all means all" or "God is too nice" and so on and so forth. My thoughts on this topic have been hinted at elsewhere but for the moment I want to conduct a little exercise.

I'm going to list a series of passages that I believe at face value support each view. This is not to say advocates of each view appeal to each verse, but these are the common verses I would appeal to if I was to defend each view.

Universalism --

Philippians 2:5-11. Romans 5:12-21; 11:32-26. Colossians 1:15-20. Ephesians 1:10-11; 20-22. John 3:16. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19.

Annihilationism/ Conditional Immortality --

John 3:16-17. Matthew 10:28; 25:41, 46. Ecclesiastes 9:5. Jude 7. Romans 6:23. Malachi 4:1-3. Revelation 20:10-15. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. Isaiah 66:24. Matthew 18:8.

Eternal Conscious Torment --

Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10-15. Matthew 25:46. C.S. Lewis (yes, this is a joke).

You will notice that save for the Universalist position, Conditionalists and Traditionalists share common texts, often engaged in systemic discussions over tenses and the like. The Universalist has two issues to address: how to engage the "negative" texts in a faithful way, and how to build a positive case.

The Conditionalist and Traditionalist have an easier job, in that they appeal to varying interpretations of many of the same texts, thus not needing to answer the set of "positive universalist" texts.

In short, the three views are overlapping but there is a strong disconnect between Universalism and the other two views. Certainly Conditionalists and Universalists share a common view of the final victory of God, but the similarities are slim. Same with Traditionalists and Conditionalists regarding "final and irrevocable" punishment.

One of the few flaws in Edward Fudge's masterful The Fire That Consumes was in regarding his treatment of Universalism. Though I know Edward to be a generous soul and love his ministry, he never tries to explain the Universalist texts that seem to contradict his own interpretation. In my eyes, this is a missed chance to incorporate various prima facie contradictory verses.

This is in some ways indicative of the entire modern hell debate: Universalists react strongly against Traditionalism while more or less ignoring Conditionalism, and so on and so forth. To be fair, you do have a little bit in Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God addressing annihilationism but it is brief and doesn't do the contradictory perspective justice. Each side seems to react more towards a specific view at the exclusion of another view.

Conditionalists and traditionalists, in order to answer for themselves, need to bring Universalism into the dialogue in order to not only understand their point of view, but how to speak up. I know Edward Fudge and Robin Parry are friends, so this may have happened in private but I am looking forward to a massive anthology that incorporates all views in multiples voices that allows for dissention and dialogue.

Let's get Thomas Talbott, Robin Parry, David Congdon, Edward Fudge, Glenn Peoples, I. Howard Marshall, Robert Peterson and Christopher Morgan all together and duke this out. No more speaking past each other. Each side must explain the other texts.

Of course, I may be speaking to the choir but this is an issue that has bugged me since the beginning.

Thoughts?

--Nick

The Myth of the "Apparent" Meaning of Scripture

Quient:

When I attended Biola University as a Bible major (and seminary at Trinity later), the Bible came even more alive for me. What made the difference was not simply being told what passages mean, but understanding how one arrives at the meaning. Many of the passages I had previously misunderstood became clear after I learned about the culture, background and language being employed. Sometimes, it was merely a matter of understanding the context better (some of these have been discussed on this blog).

What has deeply troubled me in many of my interactions with other Evangelicals is also something I have been warned about by almost every professor I have had whether from Biola, Westminster or Trinity.  The problem is a subjective reading of the text. While this is obvious in questions like “what does the text mean to me?” it is also prevalent in a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of the “clarity of Scripture.” This mentality can be summarized as follows: I can open up my Bible and understand its plain meaning on whatever topic. This is a simplistic understanding of the text that ends up distorting rather than understanding the text.

To begin with, the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture does not mean the Bible always says things “plainly” in a literalist fashion or that everything can be easily understood. The true doctrine says that the Bible is clear on what is necessary for faith and practice. In other words, you can open it and understand how to be saved and to be in a right relationship with God. The finer points however, are not always understood. Why?

1. There are major cultural differences that prevent us from understanding an otherwise apparent reading.

Ex 1: One example of this is in how we interpret the parable in Luke 11 where a friend knocks on the door of a neighbor because a guest came late at night and food is needed. The friend inside gives the excuse that the door is shut and it will wake up the children if he was to get up and help. Many westerners do not get the joke here—the person inside is giving ridiculous and laughable excuses. It is the whole villages responsibility and not helping will reflect poorly on all of them there is a strong communal sense of responsibility. Jesus is making a “how much more” argument here. Would this ever happen? No! How much less likely that God would do such a thing! Consider the next parable where He asks what father would give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish!? Not catching this nuance often paints the incorrect picture that perhaps one has to pray and pray and pray in order for God to be roused to help.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Did Paul have a High View of Scripture?"

As always, I tip my hat to Peter Enns.

Yes, of course he did. He was a Jew trained in the traditions of his people. In fact, he had such a high view of scripture, for a while there he was trying to put to death those annoying Christ-followers who undermined it.

That high view of scripture was not abandoned when Paul became a follower of Jesus himself. It was just transformed and utterly refocused.

Paul had a high view of scripture. It’s just doesn’t look like what conservative Evangelicals insist on when they talk about a high view of scripture.

For Paul, his scripture–the story of Israel–come to its conclusion in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the creation of a new people of God made up of Jew and Gentile on equal footing. But that conclusion could only be seen in hindsight. It wasn’t obvious. That’s why Paul had to argue his case, and, as I mentioned in my previous post, Paul had to make some deft moves to bring Israel’s story into the story of Jesus.

What we’ve got here is, for modern Evangelicals, a bit of a paradox: Paul no doubt deeply respected Israel’s story as God’s Word, but that Word now had to be re-read, because of what God did in and through Jesus did not follow the playbook.

A messiah who died and then rose from the dead. Two problems here:

1. The messianic hope of Judaism was basically (it’s a more complicated than this) of a king like the good old days; a military leader who would rid the land of its current squatters, the Romans, so the people of God could get their independence back.

2. This messiah would set an example for God’s people by living according to God’s Law, thus ushering in a new age of peace and communion with God.

Land and Law. These were connected. Israel lost the land to the Babylonians in the 6th century BC because of their failure to be faithful to God’s Law. Hence, to get it back–I mean actually get it back fully, not just be guests of the Romans–faithfulness to the Law was a big deal.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick