The Drippings of the Honeycomb
[First of all, there is a good (heated, yet Christian) discussion about the doctrines of grace going on at Frank's place... good stuff.]
A couple of Sundays ago, John MacArthur exposited this text for the local body at Grace Community Church. And, for me, it couldn't have come at a better time. With so much talk in the Evangelical world over the place of the Bible in the Christian life, it was a joy to sit under an exposition of one of the most clear and poignant affimations in all of Scripture regarding the role and authority of the Word of God.
Recently, I was engaged in an interesting discussion with a person who asserted the following:
His main point is that to claim that the Bible - the Word of God - is the "definer of truth" is tantamount to deifying the Scriptures, "which is supreme error." The problem with his argument is that he sees a separation between the written Word and the incarnate Word. He sees a distinction between God's revelation and our ability to commune with Him. I don't believe that these distinctions can be made. They are inextricably linked. We can't worship God except through the revelation of Him as found in Scripture. We don't worship our Bibles. We worship God, in the Spirit, through Christ, as revealed in Scripture. God is the definer of Truth. The Bible - His Word - is His Truth defined.
That was sort of a parenthesis. Although, it does tie-in to the following...
The Biblical text mentioned above makes six declarations about the Word of God (v 7-9). It uses six different descriptions for the Word, which describe six different roles of the Word: it is called the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandment, the fear, and the judgments. Following each of these descriptions is the phrase "of the LORD," which seems to, in itself, claim authority. It seems to be saying that the revelation of which David is speaking is of YHWH, the supreme Sovereign, the one who is. It's also very exclusive. It is the law of YHWH that is in discussion, not any other law, revelation. And it is completely sufficient for all things.
After each of these declarations of Scriptural authority, David gives us an adjective that accords with the afore mentioned subject. The adjectival words used are perfect (complete, full, without blemish, undefiled), sure (firm, faithful), right (straight, direct), pure (polished, clear), clean, and true (certain). Each of these words gives us an understanding of the different aspects of the Word. Together they reveal the scope of its abiblity - an all-encompassing scope.
Finally, after each of the adjectival clauses David gives us a practical application for the Word. He tells us how the Word functions, practically: it restores the soul, makes the simple wise, produces joy in the heart, enlightens the eyes, lasts forever, and is altogether righteous.
Then in verse 10 we find something amazing:
For so many people today, this statement is probably foreign. How many people can say that the law of the LORD is this wonderful to them? more wonderful than gold? fine gold? sweeter than honey? I honestly don't believe that I can utter these words in full sincerity - God help.
But the thing that is truly amazing to me is that David is declaring his unmatched passion for the law of the LORD before Christ. He is still in the position of looking forward to the Messiah. His hope, joy, reverence, passion, and love for the law of God was rooted firmly in a future hope, not a past reality. He hadn't yet understood the consummation of God's salvific, atoning plan.
How much more should we cherish the Word! We have seen atonement come to fruition. We stand on the other side of the cross, looking back at our Passover lamb, who "died once for all, the just for the unjust," so that we might "walk in newness of life," without any fear of condemnation. We have the full revelation of God. The sweetness that David savored in the law should become to us, who have the full Word, a more purified sweetness. It should be an intoxicating fragrance.
The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb (Psalm 19: 7-10).
A couple of Sundays ago, John MacArthur exposited this text for the local body at Grace Community Church. And, for me, it couldn't have come at a better time. With so much talk in the Evangelical world over the place of the Bible in the Christian life, it was a joy to sit under an exposition of one of the most clear and poignant affimations in all of Scripture regarding the role and authority of the Word of God.
Recently, I was engaged in an interesting discussion with a person who asserted the following:
I don't believe that the Bible is the "definer of truth." Christ--the Logos and eternal Wisdom of God, he who is co-eternal and consubstantial in being with God--is the only definer of truth. To claim that the Scriptures are thus is to deify them and make them consubstantial in nature with deity, which is supreme error.
His main point is that to claim that the Bible - the Word of God - is the "definer of truth" is tantamount to deifying the Scriptures, "which is supreme error." The problem with his argument is that he sees a separation between the written Word and the incarnate Word. He sees a distinction between God's revelation and our ability to commune with Him. I don't believe that these distinctions can be made. They are inextricably linked. We can't worship God except through the revelation of Him as found in Scripture. We don't worship our Bibles. We worship God, in the Spirit, through Christ, as revealed in Scripture. God is the definer of Truth. The Bible - His Word - is His Truth defined.
That was sort of a parenthesis. Although, it does tie-in to the following...
The Biblical text mentioned above makes six declarations about the Word of God (v 7-9). It uses six different descriptions for the Word, which describe six different roles of the Word: it is called the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandment, the fear, and the judgments. Following each of these descriptions is the phrase "of the LORD," which seems to, in itself, claim authority. It seems to be saying that the revelation of which David is speaking is of YHWH, the supreme Sovereign, the one who is. It's also very exclusive. It is the law of YHWH that is in discussion, not any other law, revelation. And it is completely sufficient for all things.
After each of these declarations of Scriptural authority, David gives us an adjective that accords with the afore mentioned subject. The adjectival words used are perfect (complete, full, without blemish, undefiled), sure (firm, faithful), right (straight, direct), pure (polished, clear), clean, and true (certain). Each of these words gives us an understanding of the different aspects of the Word. Together they reveal the scope of its abiblity - an all-encompassing scope.
Finally, after each of the adjectival clauses David gives us a practical application for the Word. He tells us how the Word functions, practically: it restores the soul, makes the simple wise, produces joy in the heart, enlightens the eyes, lasts forever, and is altogether righteous.
Then in verse 10 we find something amazing:
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb
For so many people today, this statement is probably foreign. How many people can say that the law of the LORD is this wonderful to them? more wonderful than gold? fine gold? sweeter than honey? I honestly don't believe that I can utter these words in full sincerity - God help.
But the thing that is truly amazing to me is that David is declaring his unmatched passion for the law of the LORD before Christ. He is still in the position of looking forward to the Messiah. His hope, joy, reverence, passion, and love for the law of God was rooted firmly in a future hope, not a past reality. He hadn't yet understood the consummation of God's salvific, atoning plan.
How much more should we cherish the Word! We have seen atonement come to fruition. We stand on the other side of the cross, looking back at our Passover lamb, who "died once for all, the just for the unjust," so that we might "walk in newness of life," without any fear of condemnation. We have the full revelation of God. The sweetness that David savored in the law should become to us, who have the full Word, a more purified sweetness. It should be an intoxicating fragrance.
posted by Austin | 12:07 AM
24 Comments:
Austin--
You said (in italics):
The problem with his argument is that he sees a separation between the written Word and the incarnate Word.
Yes, I see a necessary separation. After all, if there is no separation, then my critique about the deification of the Scriptures is spot-on, for that which is consubstantial with Christ as Logos of God is, in fact, deity.
He sees a distinction between God's revelation and our ability to commune with Him.
Not at all. The very reason that we can commune with God is because God has made Godself intelligible through the Incarnation of the Logos, Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. If the Scriptures are the sole means by which humans can commune with God, then that would mean that Adam and Eve would have had to be packing a KJV in the garden where they communed with God. Rather, it is by the Spirit of God that we have communion with God.
I don't believe that these distinctions can be made. They are inextricably linked. We can't worship God except through the revelation of Him as found in Scripture.
Again, if this is true, then you effectively marginalize not only segments of the current population that live without access to the Scriptures, but you also negate the possibility of God-worship for the thousands of years that humans have existed without the Scriptures. Abraham (who had no Scriptures) was saved by faith, not by the Scriptures. He believed the self-revelation of God through the eternal Logos who suffuses eternity and creation with knowledge of God.
We don't worship our Bibles. We worship God, in the Spirit, through Christ, as revealed in Scripture.
But Christ is not revealed through Scripture. Christ, himself, is the revelation of God. Revelation does not, itself, need to be revealed, for the nature of revelation is, well, revelatory. Therefore, we must continually look to the Scriptures as the witnesses to this revelation, not the means by which this revelation is revealed. Christ came in the flesh, not ink.
God is the definer of Truth. The Bible - His Word - is His Truth defined.
This may be, but the reason the ink and paper contains truth is because it is written as a testimony to the truth of God that is revealed in Christ. Self-revelation occurs through embodiment and manifestation, not rhetoric.
Parenthetically, I have a hard time understanding how this passage from the Psalm--which is talking about the "law of the Lord"--can be categorically applied to the canon of Scripture which we possess today. If one is being honest about the meaning of the passage under consideration, it is clear that the author is talking about the Torah, the books of the Law of Moses, not the 66 books which Protestants affirm (not to mention the books which Catholics and Orthodox affirm in addition to these). And assuming that this is Davidic (which is unknowable), the vast majority of the rest of the OT, not to mention the NT, would have been written following the inking of this text. Therefore, from a textual standpoint, it would be quite difficult to hermeneutically stretch the meaning present in this text to encompass, as a definition, the whole of the canonical writings which Protestants affirm today.
Therefore, if the stretch is going to be made, it can only be made upon the authority of the historic church's affirmation of the texts which they eventually canonized (late 4th century). Correct me if I am wrong, but this is something which I doubt you'd be willing to affirm.
Exist,
Can individuals worship the one true God if they have never been exposed to any of His self-revelation (which I believe to be the Bible)? If so, how? If not, why?
Has God's approach of self-revelation to persons always been the same?
"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2).
It seems as though He spoke directly to the fathers (ie. Abraham). He definitely spoke to Adam and Eve face-to-face. Then he spoke to folks through the prophets. And now He has spoken and is speaking through Christ. I think the term is "progressional revelation." Adam and Eve received part, Abraham received part, David received a little more, Ezra received a little more still, and we - on the other side of the cross - have received the full revelation.
Now, when Paul responds to the Philippian jailer's question about how he must be saved, what is his response? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." This is essential for persons today. But it wasn't essential for Abraham and other OT persons to have faith in the resurrected Savior, He hadn't come yet.
Also, how does the Spirit work in our communion with God? Is it possible that He works through the written Word? After all, He ex-pired the Scriptures. Again, I think that the Spirit and His word are inextricably linked. He works through His word.
For clarification, I don't believe - and I hope it hasn't come across - that a person necessarily has to have read the Bible, as we know it, to be saved. If an evangelist were to witness to a person who was ignorant of the Bible, preach the whole Gospel, and he or she responded with saving faith but got into a car accident moments after the conversion and died, I believe that he or she was saved. True conversion, is true conversion. But true conversion can only come about when God's salvation, as revealed in Scripture, is preached.
Lastly, the point of this post was to provide an "a fortiori" argument. If David, who lived on the other side of the cross, loved "the law" as much as he did, then we who have the full-revelation ("tota scriptura") ought to embrace the sweetness of the Word even moreso.
Yes, this text is in reference to "the law" in its immediate context. But are we to assume that God the Spirit had no intention of including the whole of Scripture with these same ideas when it was penned? Just a thought...
Oh, I forget to ask. How do you italicize? I'm not that computer savy.
Austin--
Thanks for engaging my post. Before I begin with a response, to answer your question, italics can be done simply by putting the tags and around the text you wish to italicize, the former at the beginning of the chunk of text and the latter at the end of the section. Hope this helps!
Can individuals worship the one true God if they have never been exposed to any of His self-revelation (which I believe to be the Bible)? If so, how? If not, why?
No, I don't believe individuals could worship God without divine self-revelation. However, I believe that God has revealed Godself through the Logos of God, Christ, God of very God, whose incarnation suffuses all of space/time, not only historically, but transhistorically as well. Therefore, there are many testifiers or witnesses to God's self-revelation, including creation (Romans 1), the historic person of Jesus, the apostolic tradition of the church (Paul's words of "what we have seen we pass down to you"), etc.
Has God's approach of self-revelation to persons always been the same?
I would say "yes." God, from all of eternity, has revealed Godself through Christ, the Logos, the very Wisdom of God. This has occured in multifarious ways, of course, but the content of the revelation is consistent.
"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2).
It seems as though He spoke directly to the fathers (ie. Abraham). He definitely spoke to Adam and Eve face-to-face. Then he spoke to folks through the prophets. And now He has spoken and is speaking through Christ. I think the term is "progressional revelation." Adam and Eve received part, Abraham received part, David received a little more, Ezra received a little more still, and we - on the other side of the cross - have received the full revelation.
There is a sense in which divine self-revelation is "progressive." However, I think it is only so in a phenomenological way. That is, God has revealed Godself to humanity according to humanity's evolution through the centuries, and has used many different things to accomplish this. However, from a transhistorical perspective, the content of the revelation is constant--God is revealed to be who God is through Christ the Logos, the self-revelation of the divine nature. Apart from Christ as the source of self-revelation, the Scriptures, creation, the apostolic tradition of the church, etc.--all these things would cease to express any meaningful content, for they are only witnesses to God as they point to Christ, the Logos, the self-revelation of God.
Now, when Paul responds to the Philippian jailer's question about how he must be saved, what is his response? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." This is essential for persons today. But it wasn't essential for Abraham and other OT persons to have faith in the resurrected Savior, He hadn't come yet.
From a historical perspective, this may be right. However, in terms of revelation, the content of the jailor and Abraham's faith are the same, for they are responding to the measure of God's self-revelation which is suffused throughout space/time through Christ, the eternal Logos of God and to which creation, the Scriptures, the apostolic tradition of the church, etc., testify.
Also, how does the Spirit work in our communion with God? Is it possible that He works through the written Word?
Is it possible that the Spirit works through the Scriptures to bring one into communion with God? Of course! Just as it is possible that the Spirit works through the help of a friend to accomplish the same. The point I am making is that both these (the Scriptures and the love of a friend) function as testifiers to God's self-revelation in Christ.
For clarification, I don't believe - and I hope it hasn't come across - that a person necessarily has to have read the Bible, as we know it, to be saved. If an evangelist were to witness to a person who was ignorant of the Bible, preach the whole Gospel, and he or she responded with saving faith but got into a car accident moments after the conversion and died, I believe that he or she was saved. True conversion, is true conversion. But true conversion can only come about when God's salvation, as revealed in Scripture, is preached.
I don't necessarily disagree. However, we must be aware that God has a lot of "preachers," not all of whom are human or audibly discerned.
Lastly, the point of this post was to provide an "a fortiori" argument. If David, who lived on the other side of the cross, loved "the law" as much as he did, then we who have the full-revelation ("tota scriptura") ought to embrace the sweetness of the Word even moreso.
Ok, although I would still, as you know by now, object to equating the "full-revelation" of God with the canon of texts which we affirm as Scripture.
Yes, this text is in reference to "the law" in its immediate context. But are we to assume that God the Spirit had no intention of including the whole of Scripture with these same ideas when it was penned? Just a thought...
I don't mind if you make the assumption. However, what my point is getting at is the question of how you are to determine to which books one is going to extend the concept of the "whole of Scripture." The books of the canon are not self-defined, but were rather determined over the course of almost 400 years. Therefore, if your final authority is to be "tota Scriptura" and "sola Scriptura," I do not see how you can honestly avoid the conclusion that the authority for these claims is based, in actuality, upon whatever authority you are willing to extend to the councils of the early church which were the ecclesial bodies that eventually codified what we now recognize as the canon of Scripture. As I see nothing so far in your posts that recognize this authority (that is, the authority of the councils that codified the canon), I am not sure that I can see that you are being consistent in how you approach Scripture, nor in the way to which you appeal to its authority. What are your opinions about this issue?
Austin... when posting a comment, there's a little blurb above the comment box that says... "You can use some HTML tags, such as..."
So if you want to italisize something you would do something like the following... <i>This is in italics</i>
Exist,
As I see nothing so far in your posts that recognize this authority (that is, the authority of the councils that codified the canon), I am not sure that I can see that you are being consistent in how you approach Scripture, nor in the way to which you appeal to its authority. What are your opinions about this issue?
This is the age old question about the canon. I suppose the traditional catholic answer would be that the authority of the church determined the canon. But the traditional reformed (not necessarily "calvinistic") view would say that the individual books carried with them an intrinsic authority (apostolic authorship, etc.) that the councils of Carthage (397), Jamnia (90), etc. affirmed and took notice of by the guiding work of the Spirit. Hence, the books in the canon that we possess are authoritative in and of themselves. The church councils, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, simply noticed it.
In your opinion, can natural revelation lead to salvation? If yes, how and why do you believe so? If not, what is the extent of natural revelation's efficacy?
Frank and Exist,
Thanks for the help concerning italics.
austin--
This is the age old question about the canon. I suppose the traditional catholic answer would be that the authority of the church determined the canon. But the traditional reformed (not necessarily "calvinistic") view would say that the individual books carried with them an intrinsic authority (apostolic authorship, etc.) that the councils of Carthage (397), Jamnia (90), etc. affirmed and took notice of by the guiding work of the Spirit. Hence, the books in the canon that we possess are authoritative in and of themselves. The church councils, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, simply noticed it.
We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. In my understanding, the concept of "simply noticed it" doesn't quite capture the controversy that surrounded several of the books that are currently included in the canon, as well as many others that weren't.
In your opinion, can natural revelation lead to salvation? If yes, how and why do you believe so? If not, what is the extent of natural revelation's efficacy?
I believe that creation's testimony about the self-revelation of God in Christ can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead one to be reconciled with the creator.
As to "why," I would note those sections of Scripture which identify creation's testimony to God, including Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20, Genesis 1:1, etc.
Exist,
We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. In my understanding, the concept of "simply noticed it" doesn't quite capture the controversy that surrounded several of the books that are currently included in the canon, as well as many others that weren't.
True, there was much controversy over certain books (OT and NT). But I am firm believer that God is in control of all things. And I believe that His hand was personally involved in the establishment of the canon. But to be more precise, I believe that in actuality the canon was set - by God - as soon as the final book was penned.
I hold to apostolic authorship (the majority opinion until the 18th century) for NT books. I reject "Quelle." And I believe that the "canon" was closed around the end of the 1st century (Domitian's reign) due to the claims of many of the early Church Fathers.
It is also interesting to note, James White - a reformed apologist, textual scholar, pastor, theologian, etc. - has stated that there was an unofficial "canon" that resembles our current Bibles almost exactly (minus 2 & 3 John and maybe 2 Peter (?)) by 140 -170. I haven't researched this too much, so I'm not sure about the validity, but I hope to.
As far as the OT, I reject the "documentary hypothesis." I am pretty "old fashioned" as far as OT authorship. I trust the early traditions a bit more than modernistic methods of higher criticism and the like.
Where do you stand?
I believe that creation's testimony about the self-revelation of God in Christ can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead one to be reconciled with the creator.
It can be "used by the Holy Spirit to lead one to be reconciled with the Creator [sic]"? To what extent? Can it save apart from special revelation?
My views on this are currently being tweaked. I used to firmly believe that man could know about God (not just a god, but YHWH) in a limited way through natural revelation, but not know God. We could understand some of His "attributes" (I too cite Rom 1, Ps 19), but not in a saving way. But more recently - especially the past few days and weeks - I am beginning to consider that man may not be able to perceive Him as much as I once thought. Sure, His heavens "declare His glory" and His attributes "have been clearly seen." But natural man suppresses these truths. And they do not glorify Him in light of this revelation.
Either way, natural revelation cannot lead to salvation, only condemnation.
The last sentence should more appropriately read, "Either way, natural revelation, by itself, cannot lead to salvation, only condemnation.
Austin--
You said:
True, there was much controversy over certain books (OT and NT). But I am firm believer that God is in control of all things. And I believe that His hand was personally involved in the establishment of the canon. But to be more precise, I believe that in actuality the canon was set - by God - as soon as the final book was penned.
I too believe that God is in control of all things. That being said, in what way(s) do you envision God's hand being "personally inovled in the establishment of the canon?"
I hold to apostolic authorship (the majority opinion until the 18th century) for NT books. I reject "Quelle." And I believe that the "canon" was closed around the end of the 1st century (Domitian's reign) due to the claims of many of the early Church Fathers.
Well, the last book of the canon may have been written by the end of the 1sr century, but the canon itself was hardly closed. As debates over the next 3 centuries reveal, the church had varying opinions as to the exact composition of the canon, opinion which would not be unified and codified until 397 A.D.
It is also interesting to note, James White - a reformed apologist, textual scholar, pastor, theologian, etc. - has stated that there was an unofficial "canon" that resembles our current Bibles almost exactly (minus 2 & 3 John and maybe 2 Peter (?)) by 140 -170. I haven't researched this too much, so I'm not sure about the validity, but I hope to.
This is true, to an extent. THere were collections of books that contained many of the same books of the NT which we recognize today. However, even this reveals that the content and formation of the canon of the Scriptures rests indellibly on the authority of the church, for it was these various bodies who asserted the authority of certain collections of books and passed them down over the centuries to us.
As far as the OT, I reject the "documentary hypothesis." I am pretty "old fashioned" as far as OT authorship. I trust the early traditions a bit more than modernistic methods of higher criticism and the like.
What exactly are your reasons for rejecting documentary hypothesis? While I agree that there are certain some rabid forms of documentary hypothesis, it is still quite impossible to not recognize that these forms exist within the literature to a certain extent.
Where do you stand?
To me, documentary hypothesis is not a big deal. I don't really think it is possible to ascertain the identity of the authors of the OT texts (positively OR negatively) and I also don't think the author's identity is material to content and message of the texts.
It can be "used by the Holy Spirit to lead one to be reconciled with the Creator [sic]"? To what extent? Can it save apart from special revelation?
I don't think there is bifurcation between "natural" and "special" revelation. As I've said before, as the Logos of God suffuses all that God has made with a testimony to the nature and character of the eternal Creator, all witnesses testify to the same self-revelation of God in Christ.
My views on this are currently being tweaked. I used to firmly believe that man could know about God (not just a god, but YHWH) in a limited way through natural revelation, but not know God. We could understand some of His "attributes" (I too cite Rom 1, Ps 19), but not in a saving way. But more recently - especially the past few days and weeks - I am beginning to consider that man may not be able to perceive Him as much as I once thought. Sure, His heavens "declare His glory" and His attributes "have been clearly seen." But natural man suppresses these truths. And they do not glorify Him in light of this revelation.
But neither do they recognize nor glorify God in light of what you would call "special revelation." Even with the clear manifestation of the Logos as the God/human, humanity still rejects and despises God. Therefore, I do not think the difference is as great as it might appear to you.
Either way, natural revelation, by itself, cannot lead to salvation, only condemnation.
As I said before, I don't think there is such a thing as "natural revelation" by itself apart from special revelation. Rather, what can be known of God through creation, etc. is simply a different witness to the same truth of the self-revelation of God in Christ.
Exist,
Very interesting stuff... I'm enjoying this immensely.
I too believe that God is in control of all things. That being said, in what way(s) do you envision God's hand being "personally inovled in the establishment of the canon?"
First of all, I belive that God Himself "ex-pired" the text. I believe in the doctrine of "plenary inspiration," where God "wrote" the words of Scripture through human authors, but at the same time allowed for their individual human characteristics to shine through (ie. David's tenderness, Paul's syllogistic resoning, etc.).
Secondly, I believe that the texts themselves are the inspired Word of God. So, as soon as "Revelation" was penned, God closed the canon. Then over the centuries, ending in Carthage (for the most part) as you mentioned, the canon was set. I have no problem believing that the Bible that I hold in my hand is in its current form because God oversaw every debate, every council, every synod, and every word during these deliberations in order that the outcome would produce the proper results, which they did. And not only did He oversee everything, but He also willed it.
Well, the last book of the canon may have been written by the end of the 1sr century, but the canon itself was hardly closed. As debates over the next 3 centuries reveal, the church had varying opinions as to the exact composition of the canon, opinion which would not be unified and codified until 397 A.D.
Well, we could even stretch the debate further. Luther had problems with the book of James. And other more recent theologians throughout history have had issues with other books as well (Esther, among others).
When I said that the "canon" was closed by the end of the first century I was refering to the idea that God closed it as soon as John finished writing.
However, even this reveals that the content and formation of the canon of the Scriptures rests indellibly on the authority of the church...
I think you said it perfectly earlier, "We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one."
What exactly are your reasons for rejecting documentary hypothesis? While I agree that there are certain some rabid forms of documentary hypothesis, it is still quite impossible to not recognize that these forms exist within the literature to a certain extent.
Gleason Archer wrote a great defense of the "classical authorship" of the OT, maybe you have heard of it... Introduction to Old Testament Survey.
Austin-
I have been following this discussion, and thought I would add a couple of thoughts to it.
First of all, I belive that God Himself "ex-pired" the text. I believe in the doctrine of "plenary inspiration," where God "wrote" the words of Scripture through human authors, but at the same time allowed for their individual human characteristics to shine through (ie. David's tenderness, Paul's syllogistic resoning, etc.).
I don't want to presume upon how far your opinion/belief on this goes, but how far does God 'writing' the actual words go?
When I said that the "canon" was closed by the end of the first century I was refering to the idea that God closed it as soon as John finished writing.
I suppose that one could make this statement in hindsight, but the early church certainly did not have that luxury. Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, The Book of Enoch, and others written in the second century were believed by some to be authoritative. (If you read the works of Minucius Felix, he has an interesting dialogue with Origen about the canonicity of the Book of Enoch- Minucius is skeptical based on arguments that are, interestingly enough, are in use in modern day textual criticism, while Origen seems to feel that its being quoted by Jude gives it some merit.) Thus, the church couldn't just say 'oh, the canon is closed' but had to struggle with the issues, and through that process defined the canon. It is a matter of faith to believe the Spirit led the process, but such a faith cannot definitively say that the church didn't play the decisive role in the formation of the canon.
Well, we could even stretch the debate further. Luther had problems with the book of James. And other more recent theologians throughout history have had issues with other books as well (Esther, among others).
This is precisely why Exist is pressing the point of the role and authority of the early church in canon formation. The rule of faith, the tradition of the church, was the formative guide not only for the theological controversies of the early church, but for canon formation as well.
I do agree that some of the books contained some kind of intrinsic authority- and what I mean by that is that in my reading of the church fathers, there is an almost universal acceptance of the gospels and most Paul's letters. So it is apparent that the church recognized the authority of the apostles' writings. But it is important to note that it wasn't just because it had a name attached to it- there were plenty of psuedo-letters and gospels floating around, some better than others. Rather, these books had been passed down through the churches and the teachings were in line with the rule of faith. Christian theology didn't wait until the canon was closed to start-in fact, within most of the NT you can see allusions to a commonly held tradition as well as appeals to what has been handed down. Luke, in his preface, talks about writing an account of the teaching Theopholis has received. Paul in numerous places makes use of early creedal hymns already in use within the church, and incorporates them into his writings. (See Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 3:16, etc.)
Therefore, even in the writings of scripture there is the understanding that it's not just the books of scripture which form the basis for authority in faith and practice, but that the church has an active and authoritative role. This authority becomes more and more evident as theological controversies emerge, and the church is forced to define different issues like the nature of Christ, the trinity, etc., which, though they go beyond the explicit content of scripture, are nevertheless accepted by all Christians, whether catholic, orthodox or protestant, as authoritative as scripture. I guess I am simply saying that this authority is evident within the canonization process.
Mr. Monk,
Welcome, 2 on 1 isn't really fair... I'm not Shaq... any help??? JK
I don't want to presume upon how far your opinion/belief on this goes, but how far does God 'writing' the actual words go?
I appreciate your patience. For me, the word theopneustos is the linchpin. This is a good quote by B.B. Warfield:
The Greek term [theopneustos] has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a "spiring" or "spiration." What it says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, "Godbreathed," the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product... No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The "breath of God" is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. "By the word of Jehovah," we read in the significant parallel of Ps. xxxiii. 6, "were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And it is particularly where the operations Of God are energetic that this term (whether j'Wr, rūaḥ, or hm;v;n], neshāmāh) is employed to designate them - God's breath is the irresistible outfloew of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture," or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation.
I hope this added clarification...
You said,
I suppose that one could make this statement in hindsight, but the early church certainly did not have that luxury.
Absolutley. I am speaking as one who is looking back.
Thus, the church couldn't just say 'oh, the canon is closed' but had to struggle with the issues, and through that process defined the canon. It is a matter of faith to believe the Spirit led the process, but such a faith cannot definitively say that the church didn't play the decisive role in the formation of the canon.
I hope it hasn't come across that I am negating any invlovement of the early church. Of course they had to make the decisions. But my point is that the reason the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and and other texts were excluded was ulitmately a Divine decree. I would say that God decreed the establishment of the canon at some point in eternity. But He used human means (councils, etc.) to bring about His ends.
Paul in numerous places makes use of early creedal hymns already in use within the church, and incorporates them into his writings.
He also quoted Epimenides, a Cretan poet in Acts 17:28. These are perfect examples of "plenary inspiration."
Here is a good quote by Donald MacLeod that explains "plenary inspiration" as I have come to accept it:
In 2 Peter 1:21 we are told that the prophets spoke as they were `moved' or `carried' by the Holy Spirit. That brings before us two great facts. First, scripture is divinely inspired; and, secondly, it is the product of men. We saw in the previous chapter that inspiration covers the whole of scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that is not `breathed out' by God Himself. In that sense He is the author of the entire Bible. Yet we are told equally clearly that it was men who spoke. In fact, the emphasis falls on this fact: `carried by God spoke men'. They were God's spokesmen, but they spoke very much as men. They weren't automata, used by God as shorthand writers or mere typewriters. Their whole personalities were involved in the work God gave them to do. Their hearts, their minds, their memories, their emotions, their whole experience and all their gifts went into creating the Bible for us. Far from suppressing their personalities, God used them. Indeed, their personalities had been moulded for this very purpose. They were chosen for their work from eternity, and all that ever happened to them happened within God's determination to use them as authors of His infallible Word... There is something here of enormous importance for our own Christian service. When God uses us He doesn't suppress our personalities. He doesn't flatten us off and make us just units in some kind of assembly line. He uses us as we are. We are all different in our temperaments and aptitudes and sometimes, just because we're different, we feel useless. And yet what God wants of us is exactly our personal kind of service. That's why Peter says, `This is Peter speaking', and why Paul says, `This is Paul speaking', and John says, `This is John speaking'. What they were was part of what they offered to God. They were engaged, with their own temperaments and their own gifts, in doing the will of God.
Goodnight and May the Lord Bless You,
Austin
Austin--
As Deviant Monk sufficiently answered your last response to mine, I will not rehash what he has said. However, I do still have a few questions on your response to Deviant Monk's.
You said:
The Greek term [theopneustos] has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a "spiring" or "spiration." What it says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, "Godbreathed," the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product... No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The "breath of God" is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. "By the word of Jehovah," we read in the significant parallel of Ps. xxxiii. 6, "were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And it is particularly where the operations Of God are energetic that this term (whether j'Wr, rūaḥ, or hm;v;n], neshāmāh) is employed to designate them - God's breath is the irresistible outfloew of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture," or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation.
I understand what is being said here, but I don't it actually answers the questions about the actual nature of "inspiritation," "spiration," or whatever. After all, what does "God-breathed" actually mean? God does not have physical lungs, nor does God have a physical voice. These may seem like silly issues, but they get at the heart of "inspiration-talk." After all, if both of these propositions are true, then our conception of "inspiration" must follow the same lines. So then, the question still remains, what was the divine mechanism of inspiration?
I hope it hasn't come across that I am negating any invlovement of the early church. Of course they had to make the decisions. But my point is that the reason the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and and other texts were excluded was ulitmately a Divine decree. I would say that God decreed the establishment of the canon at some point in eternity. But He used human means (councils, etc.) to bring about His ends.
I have a couple questions about this response. On the one hand, you assert that the composition and "closing" of the canon was by divine decree. If this is true, why then did God use the horribly inefficient means of bishops and councils? Moreover, if the composition and closing of the canon is truly by divine decree, how can one meaningfully say that God used the "decisions" of the bishops and councils to bring about this decree?
Here is a good quote by Donald MacLeod that explains "plenary inspiration" as I have come to accept it:
In 2 Peter 1:21 we are told that the prophets spoke as they were `moved' or `carried' by the Holy Spirit. That brings before us two great facts. First, scripture is divinely inspired; and, secondly, it is the product of men. We saw in the previous chapter that inspiration covers the whole of scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that is not `breathed out' by God Himself. In that sense He is the author of the entire Bible. Yet we are told equally clearly that it was men who spoke. In fact, the emphasis falls on this fact: `carried by God spoke men'. They were God's spokesmen, but they spoke very much as men. They weren't automata, used by God as shorthand writers or mere typewriters. Their whole personalities were involved in the work God gave them to do. Their hearts, their minds, their memories, their emotions, their whole experience and all their gifts went into creating the Bible for us. Far from suppressing their personalities, God used them. Indeed, their personalities had been moulded for this very purpose. They were chosen for their work from eternity, and all that ever happened to them happened within God's determination to use them as authors of His infallible Word... There is something here of enormous importance for our own Christian service. When God uses us He doesn't suppress our personalities. He doesn't flatten us off and make us just units in some kind of assembly line. He uses us as we are. We are all different in our temperaments and aptitudes and sometimes, just because we're different, we feel useless. And yet what God wants of us is exactly our personal kind of service. That's why Peter says, `This is Peter speaking', and why Paul says, `This is Paul speaking', and John says, `This is John speaking'. What they were was part of what they offered to God. They were engaged, with their own temperaments and their own gifts, in doing the will of God.
I don't see how MacLeod can, in an intellectually honest way, hold together the utilization of humans and "their hearts, their minds, their memories, their emotions, their whole experience and all their gifts" and still propose that the Scriptures are "infallible." After all, if the above-referenced traits of the writers of Scripture went into the final product, it must be asserted that the human traits of frailty, fallibility and lack of knowledge went into the writings as well. If one denies this, then God has not really utilized human writers, but has rather created a divine work and dressed it up in the most innocuous of human traits while disregarding those that might create problems.
Exist,
You asked,
After all, what does "God-breathed" actually mean?
And,
So then, the question still remains, what was the divine mechanism of inspiration?
I think that this is one those both-and answers. It's not an either-or. God's "mechanism of ispiration" were individuals. And He used persons by "breathing" the ability and words into them. As Warfield said, God's breath is the irresistible outfloew of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture," or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation.
I would challenge you to do a word study on theopneustos and see what comes up. The word literally means "God-breathed." Do I understand fully what that implies? I can't say that I do. But I do know that when Paul says that "all Scripture is 'God-breathed'", he is making a remarkable statement that might just be more incomprehensible than I am able to articulate at the moment. I too must continue my studies.
So, to sum up, the "divine mechanism of inspiration" was God's "breath" - His power - and certain selected individuals. Two truths, one mechanism, theopneustos.
Also,
I have a couple questions about this response. On the one hand, you assert that the composition and "closing" of the canon was by divine decree. If this is true, why then did God use the horribly inefficient means of bishops and councils?
If this is true, I don't know if I would want to call God's use of councils, bishops, etc. as "horribly inefficient."
Maybe to us things seems inefficient, but to Him they go exactly as planned... And that is where my trust in God resides. Read God's response to Job in Chapters 38 and following. Job and his friends were guilty of questioning God about the "negative" circumstances surrounding Job's life. And what was God's response?
Horrible things may happen, things that seem inefficient. But to know that all things are under His sovereign control comforts me in an indescribable way.
Moreover, if the composition and closing of the canon is truly by divine decree, how can one meaningfully say that God used the "decisions" of the bishops and councils to bring about this decree?
God uses human means to bring about His ends. When God promised Abraham the he and Sarah would bear a son did that mean an "immaculate conception" would occur. No, Abraham and Sarah still had to be intimate...
When God declared that Edom, Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, etc. would be judged, remember what means He emplyed... other people groups.
And most amazingly is this passage in reference to eternal decree of the crucifixion (Acts 4:26-28):
Peter, in a prayer to God says, "'THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.' "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."
God uses human means to carry out His ends.
I don't see how MacLeod can, in an intellectually honest way, hold together the utilization of humans and "their hearts, their minds, their memories, their emotions, their whole experience and all their gifts" and still propose that the Scriptures are "infallible." After all, if the above-referenced traits of the writers of Scripture went into the final product, it must be asserted that the human traits of frailty, fallibility and lack of knowledge went into the writings as well.
I can make my dog sit on command. How much more could the omnipotent God of the universe do something that seems impossible? Was God not able to guide them (the authors) into all truth and guard them from all error by using their unique abilities and personalities? I guess now the question becomes, how big is God?
Austin–
I think that this is one those both-and answers. It's not an either-or. God's "mechanism of inspiration" were individuals. And He used persons by "breathing" the ability and words into them. As Warfield said, God's breath is the irresistible outfloew of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture," or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation.
Okay, I still don’t exactly understand what you mean. After all, given one’s phenomenological conception of God’s activity in the world, “Divine operation” can mean a wide range of things. For example, I am not at all opposed to saying that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, just as you affirm. However, because I have a different perspective on how exactly this happens, I seriously doubt that we mean the same thing.
I would challenge you to do a word study on theopneustos and see what comes up. The word literally means "God-breathed." Do I understand fully what that implies? I can't say that I do. But I do know that when Paul says that "all Scripture is 'God-breathed'", he is making a remarkable statement that might just be more incomprehensible than I am able to articulate at the moment. I too must continue my studies.
While I do not expect you to have full understanding of what this concept means, I don’t really see that you have explained what you think it means much at all. Earlier, you said that "God used persons by "breathing" the abilitiy and words into them." Are you, therefore, advocating that God dictated the words to the writers? I don’t think you do, given your advocacy of plenary inspiration, but then again, your words above give another impression. And what do you mean by “ability?” Do you see the difficulty I am having in understanding your position?
If this is true, I don't know if I would want to call God's use of councils, bishops, etc. as "horribly inefficient."
Then what would you call it? I don’t understand why God, if God truly did "close" the canon, didn’t simply sovereignly compile it immediately, rather than subjecting it to the (divinely feigned, in your perspective) contingencies and inaccuracies of the church of the first four centuries. If God wanted to establish the bible as the sole and supreme authority for belief, why did God purposefully subject it to the councils of the church whereby misunderstanding could arise concerning the relationship of the authority of the church and the authority of the Scriptures?
Horrible things may happen, things that seem inefficient. But to know that all things are under His sovereign control comforts me in an indescribable way.
How are you comforted by the fact that God has eternally decreed by God's good pleasure the bad and horrible things that happen to you? Calvinism is easy for people of privilege. However, I think you would have different perspective of God if you lived in less than easy life circumstances.
God uses human means to bring about His ends. When God promised Abraham the he and Sarah would bear a son did that mean an "immaculate conception" would occur. No, Abraham and Sarah still had to be intimate...
When God declared that Edom, Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, etc. would be judged, remember what means He emplyed... other people groups.
And most amazingly is this passage in reference to eternal decree of the crucifixion (Acts 4:26-28):
Peter, in a prayer to God says, "'THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.' "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."
God uses human means to carry out His ends.
These may be all fine and well, but I do not understand how this proves your point about the God-breathed-ness of the Scriptures. Again, as I said before, I too believe the Scriptures are inspired, and that God was sovereignly involved in the examples that you outlined above. However, the phenomenological way in which I would describe the causal relationship of God and space/time would be fundamentally different than you and would, consequently, lead us to two entirely different conceptions of not only divine “sovereignty,” but also of “inspiration.”
I can make my dog sit on command.
Okay....?
How much more could the omnipotent God of the universe do something that seems impossible? Was God not able to guide them (the authors) into all truth and guard them from all error by using their unique abilities and personalities? I guess now the question becomes, how big is God?
I am not contemplating that which lies within the possible range of action for God, i.e., what God CAN do. This is a speculative approach to thinking about God that does not lead to any meaningful information about God. Rather, I am more interested in what God HAS DONE. God can do whatever God desires, but this doesn’t mean that God has done everything or anything. Therefore, our descriptions of these things cannot devolve to speculations about what is possible for God, but rather must proceed along the lines of description of what God has done.
Exist,
I apologize for my lack of clarity during this discussion. I really do appreciate your patience.
Let me ask you a question: What exactly are you having trouble understanding? Are you not seeing any connection between my understanding of plenary inspiration and Warfield's definition of "spiration"?
What exactly do you want to know? I want to try to be as clear as possible in my thinking and my responses. I will do my best to answer.
Then what would you call it? I don’t understand why God, if God truly did "close" the canon, didn’t simply sovereignly compile it immediately... If God wanted to establish the bible as the sole and supreme authority for belief, why did God purposefully subject it to the councils of the church whereby misunderstanding could arise concerning the relationship of the authority of the church and the authority of the Scriptures?
How can I know the secret will of God? "The secret things belong to the Lord."
We see events through finite lenses. How do we know that God isn't working 10,000 different things through events that seem chaotic and or simple? Perhaps God used the bishops, councils, etc. in establishing the canon because during the preceedings many of the council members grew in their faith through heated debate. Perhaps many other wonderful things came out the debates that we will never understand until eternity, when you and I can look back and rejoice in the Grace that we have been shown, and laugh at this conversation... Perhaps many persons after the deliberations were affected by the discusions in ways that all work to the glory of God. These of course are all speculations. Maybe one day, when we see through the glass clearly, we will understand more fully.
How are you comforted by the fact that God has eternally decreed by God's good pleasure the bad and horrible things that happen to you? Calvinism is easy for people of privilege. However, I think you would have different perspective of God if you lived in less than easy life circumstances.
First of all, you are making an unfounded assertion that is historically ignorant. Study the Puritans. Look at the hardships through which God mercifully brought them. Study other Calvinists' life. Study Calvin's life. Study the life of Spurgeon, Newton, Brainerd, Edwards, Simeon, Judson, Patton, Bunyan, etc, etc, etc... These men, among many, many others, endured hardships that I will never face. I live in the Disneyland of the world - America. I am extremely blessed - true. But to make the statement that you made is upsetting in light of the men of God who were completely brushed under the carpet by your sweeping generalization. These men had children die (Owen had 10 children die in infancy and one die as a young girl), wives die (sometimes multiple wives), sickness, orphan upbringings, revolutionary surroundings, political pressure, poverty, hostile mission fields, etc...
Look recently at John Piper who constantly raises the affections of his hearers to not only love God's sovereignty during the good times, but at all times, during death, sickness, whenever.
If you carefully examine the history of these men and the wonderful women that surrounded them you will see that even though they did face hardships, constantly, they still praised God - even when being burned at the stake.
In the words of Job, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips"(2:10). And, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."
Secondly, although I am blessed beyond measure, for you to assume that you know my life's conditions, history, etc. is a bit off-color.
Also, you said this in response to my examples from Scripture about God's sovereignty:
These may be all fine and well, but I do not understand how this proves your point about the God-breathed-ness of the Scriptures.
I used these examples as responses to this statement of yours: "if the composition and closing of the canon is truly by divine decree, how can one meaningfully say that God used the "decisions" of the bishops and councils to bring about this decree?"
I was drawing on examples from Scripture to show that God used (uses) human means (councils, bishops, etc) to bring about His ends. My point, in showing these passages, wasn't directly addressing the "God-breathed-ness" of Scripture. Rather, it was showing from the Bible that God's sovereignty and human actions, althought paradoxical at times, are not necessarily contradictary.
And lastly,
Rather, I am more interested in what God HAS DONE... Therefore, our descriptions of these things cannot devolve to speculations about what is possible for God, but rather must proceed along the lines of description of what God has done.
From where can one find that which God has done?
Austin--
Let me ask you a question: What exactly are you having trouble understanding? Are you not seeing any connection between my understanding of plenary inspiration and Warfield's definition of "spiration"?
I am having trouble seeing the connection. Earlier, you mentioned that God worked with the talents, abilities, etc. of the authors, and that these characteristics went fully into the texts. However, when I asked the logical corrolary--that of the mistakes, foibles, and errancies--you denied that these went into the Scriptures. Therefore, there is some form of interruption which allows the "good" stuff of the writers to go in and prevents the "bad" stuff from also attaining. My questioning is trying to get around to figuring out what that interruption is. Further, I am trying to press the logic, whereby one could say, in an intellectually honest way, that such a "selective" form of inspiration could really engage the humanness of the writers.
How can I know the secret will of God? "The secret things belong to the Lord."
Fair enough. However, I think this admission must leave room for the possibility that God not only used the councils and bishops, but moreover that--as it appears--these same have some measure of authority over the Scriptures.
We see events through finite lenses. How do we know that God isn't working 10,000 different things through events that seem chaotic and or simple? Perhaps God used the bishops, councils, etc. in establishing the canon because during the preceedings many of the council members grew in their faith through heated debate. Perhaps many other wonderful things came out the debates that we will never understand until eternity, when you and I can look back and rejoice in the Grace that we have been shown, and laugh at this conversation... Perhaps many persons after the deliberations were affected by the discusions in ways that all work to the glory of God. These of course are all speculations. Maybe one day, when we see through the glass clearly, we will understand more fully.
I agree. However, because we don't fully know, I don't think it is correct to discount the clear testimony of the historic church and its example concering the authority by which the Scriptures were composed and eventually codified. As we cannot, as you rightfully note, know the secret will of God, nor the multifarious ways in which God works to accomplish the divine purpose, surely this cannot be discounted as a possibility, especially given the fact that, for all intents and purposes, this looks to be precisely what happened historically.
First of all, you are making an unfounded assertion that is historically ignorant. Study the Puritans. Look at the hardships through which God mercifully brought them. Study other Calvinists' life. Study Calvin's life. Study the life of Spurgeon, Newton, Brainerd, Edwards, Simeon, Judson, Patton, Bunyan, etc, etc, etc... These men, among many, many others, endured hardships that I will never face. I live in the Disneyland of the world - America. I am extremely blessed - true. But to make the statement that you made is upsetting in light of the men of God who were completely brushed under the carpet by your sweeping generalization. These men had children die (Owen had 10 children die in infancy and one die as a young girl), wives die (sometimes multiple wives), sickness, orphan upbringings, revolutionary surroundings, political pressure, poverty, hostile mission fields, etc...
I apologize if I offended your sensibilities, and I mean that. I'm just being honest here--I have a hard time understanding how one can be comforted by the belief that God has, from all of eternity, desired (willed) to bring pain and suffering and trajedy to one's life, even if it is proposed to be leading to a greater good. Perhaps the difference is based upon a major philosophical difference. I know for me, such a belief would not be comforting, but terrifying. However, that is my opinion, and I must allow that others have different psychological makeups than I do. I apologize again for my insensitivity.
Look recently at John Piper who constantly raises the affections of his hearers to not only love God's sovereignty during the good times, but at all times, during death, sickness, whenever.
I have no problem with loving the sovereign God in all circumstances, and I wholeheartedly affirm this. However, it is the determinism, not the sovereignty, that is troublesome to me.
Secondly, although I am blessed beyond measure, for you to assume that you know my life's conditions, history, etc. is a bit off-color.
I agree. I apologize, for it was an inappropriate thing to say.
Also, you said this in response to my examples from Scripture about God's sovereignty:
I used these examples as responses to this statement of yours: "if the composition and closing of the canon is truly by divine decree, how can one meaningfully say that God used the "decisions" of the bishops and councils to bring about this decree?"
I was drawing on examples from Scripture to show that God used (uses) human means (councils, bishops, etc) to bring about His ends. My point, in showing these passages, wasn't directly addressing the "God-breathed-ness" of Scripture. Rather, it was showing from the Bible that God's sovereignty and human actions, althought paradoxical at times, are not necessarily contradictary.
Ok, i must have misunderstood you. Wow, I am apologizing a lot tonight! I don't do that often! :)
From where can one find that which God has done?
From God's self-revelation, Christ, the eternal Logos of God. There are many sources that testify to this revelation in salvation history.
Hi Exist,
Therefore, there is some form of interruption which allows the "good" stuff of the writers to go in and prevents the "bad" stuff from also attaining. My questioning is trying to get around to figuring out what that interruption is.
Without being too coy, God. He is the "interruption." Exist, I firmly believe in the supernatural. And I have no problem, intellectually, accepting the idea that Scripture is a product of God, through men, by verbal, plenary inspiration. He guided them into truth, and guarded them from error. If you are asking me to fully explain God's methods, I can't. And think anyone who tries is undertaking a lost cause. How can the finite fully comprehend the infinite?
I apologize if I offended your sensibilities, and I mean that.
I appreciate and accept your apology... see, even theological opponents can get along.
I'm just being honest here--I have a hard time understanding how one can be comforted by the belief that God has, from all of eternity, desired (willed) to bring pain and suffering and trajedy to one's life, even if it is proposed to be leading to a greater good.
My friend, I hear you loud and clear. This is not an easy thing to take hold of. But I believe it to be true as "I believe in the Sun. Not only because I see it. But because by it I see everything else."
This is a weak analogy but it sort of points the way:
Most people would say that pain is bad. But is it? Shots hurt - they cause pain. But they give the necessary medicine at an appropriate time, through an uncomfortable circumstance. Now, I don't want my child to go through painful experiences. But I will definitely, if the Lord blesses me with children, give them shots when necessary. I may not enjoy the pain that my child endures. But the pain is only momentary and for his or her good.
So too is the pain of the child of God only momentary on this Earth as compared to the future peace, joy, love, comfort, hope, bliss of eternity in fellowship with God.
I also believe that we are constantly being sanctified into the image of Christ, as do you. But what means of grace does God use to bring about this holiness? often times, suffering. We know that tribulations will come. We are told this by Jesus Himself.
Remember when Jesus promised his disciples that they would be beaten and led before hostile religious leaders who would persecute them for their belief in Him? What did he tell them? In essence, "these horrible things will happen, but don't worry, I will send the Holy Spirit to guide your words. And even though some of you will taste death and torture, take heart because I have told you in advance, and the one who perseveres will be saved (Mark 13:6-23). I will always be with you until the end."
That last sentence is my hope. He will be with us.
Also look at Romans 5:3-5:
"And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
Lastly, God wants us to lean upon Him for all things. And our relationship with Him grows when bad times come yet we lean upon Him for all things. Our pride is dismantled. Our dependence upon Him is increased. And sanctification is wrought.
I know for me, such a belief would not be comforting, but terrifying.
What's more comforting?
1. Knowing that God didn't want the bad circumstance to happen but He allowed it to happen, even though we both know that He was capable of stopping it.
or
2. Knowing that this momentary affliction will soon be past for your benefit - He promises such; and that He is in complete control over the duration of the ailment and the surrounding effects.
How is it more loving for God to allow "bad" things, that He is able to stop, to happen, unless it is for some purpose(ie. His glory and our joy)?
However, it is the determinism, not the sovereignty, that is troublesome to me.
Troublesome... that is okay. But is it true? Is it found in the Bible? And it seems apparent to me that it is. Here is another example, Act 13:48:
"When the Gentiles heard this, they {began} rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
What do you think about this passage?
From God's self-revelation, Christ, the eternal Logos of God. There are many sources that testify to this revelation in salvation history.
So, is it our job to gather the information from all the varying sources and determine what it means, subjectively?
Austin--
Without being too coy, God. He is the "interruption." Exist, I firmly believe in the supernatural. And I have no problem, intellectually, accepting the idea that Scripture is a product of God, through men, by verbal, plenary inspiration. He guided them into truth, and guarded them from error. If you are asking me to fully explain God's methods, I can't. And think anyone who tries is undertaking a lost cause. How can the finite fully comprehend the infinite?
I believe in the supernatural as well. However, in my mind, the supernatural and natural are not opposed, as if the natural has to be suspended in order for the supernatural to be manifest. For example, I asked you about the "interruption," and this gets at my conception of supernatural. As I see it, your conception of inspiration is (and I don't mean this offensively) "materialist." By that, I mean that you describe the supernatural work of inspiration in natural terms, only on a "bigger" scale than the natural. Does this make sense?
THerefore, in an attempt to avoid this kind of conclusion, I wish to see inspiration as a natural and supernatural work in which the work of God and humanity are completely present and unified in the Sciptures, even as the divine and human natures were united in the one person of Christ. Therefore, there should be a way in which to say that the Scriptures were written 100% by humans and 100% by God, not 60/40, 80/20, etc. However, if this is to be advocated, there must also be, IMO, a willingness to accept the consequences of the 100% of human involvement, i.e., that of the ignorance, foibles, and imperfections of the human mind. Rather than detracting from the Scriptures, however, I would propose that this should make them even more "real" to us, for it is not to perfect beings that the Scriptures were written.
I appreciate and accept your apology... see, even theological opponents can get along.
Indeed. Thank you for your grace.
This is a weak analogy but it sort of points the way:
Most people would say that pain is bad. But is it? Shots hurt - they cause pain. But they give the necessary medicine at an appropriate time, through an uncomfortable circumstance. Now, I don't want my child to go through painful experiences. But I will definitely, if the Lord blesses me with children, give them shots when necessary. I may not enjoy the pain that my child endures. But the pain is only momentary and for his or her good.
So too is the pain of the child of God only momentary on this Earth as compared to the future peace, joy, love, comfort, hope, bliss of eternity in fellowship with God.
I don't believe that "pain" is categorically a bad thing, either. However, I also don't think it is something "decreed" by God. Rather, in my understanding, it is simply a part of being human and living in a finite world. Pain is magnified in feeling, however, by the fact that sinful humanity lives at emnity with God.
I also believe that we are constantly being sanctified into the image of Christ, as do you. But what means of grace does God use to bring about this holiness? often times, suffering. We know that tribulations will come. We are told this by Jesus Himself.
Again, I don't disagree that suffering is used to bring us closer to God. Yet also, and again, I do not necessarily think it is something that God eternally decrees for us to undergo. Rather, it is part of living in a finite universe, as well as the consequences of living in a world where people hate themselves, each other and God.
Remember when Jesus promised his disciples that they would be beaten and led before hostile religious leaders who would persecute them for their belief in Him? What did he tell them? In essence, "these horrible things will happen, but don't worry, I will send the Holy Spirit to guide your words. And even though some of you will taste death and torture, take heart because I have told you in advance, and the one who perseveres will be saved (Mark 13:6-23). I will always be with you until the end."
Yes, I agree that Jesus predicted this for his followers. But why? Because God "foreordained" that they would suffer? I don't think so. Rather, Jesus was being realistic. People hate those who live faithfully for God, seek to destroy them, even as they destroyed Jesus and the prophets who came before him. Therefore, a life of fidelity to the will of GOd equates to suffering at the hands of humans because sinful humanity cannot countenance the judgment and testimony of a life lived faithfully to God.
Lastly, God wants us to lean upon Him for all things. And our relationship with Him grows when bad times come yet we lean upon Him for all things. Our pride is dismantled. Our dependence upon Him is increased. And sanctification is wrought.
Once again, I don't disagree. However, I simply don't see the need to suggest that these same are eternally decreed by God.
What's more comforting?
1. Knowing that God didn't want the bad circumstance to happen but He allowed it to happen, even though we both know that He was capable of stopping it.
or
2. Knowing that this momentary affliction will soon be past for your benefit - He promises such; and that He is in complete control over the duration of the ailment and the surrounding effects.
I don't think you have fully represented these options. There is quite a bit of difference, for example, in God being "in complete control" over suffering and God eternally decreeing the same.
Troublesome... that is okay. But is it true? Is it found in the Bible? And it seems apparent to me that it is.
I would disagree, of course.
Here is another example, Act 13:48:
"When the Gentiles heard this, they {began} rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
What do you think about this passage?
I'm not sure what to make of it. The author mixes the "knowledge" and "ordination" of God and the "belief" of the persons saved. As the words of Jesus, Paul and rest of the NT writers are constantly imploring their hearers to "believe," I don't think the words "appointed" here can be reduced to determinism.
So, is it our job to gather the information from all the varying sources and determine what it means, subjectively?
As objectivity is epistemically impossible for humans, subjectivity is all we have. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the search for testimony about the revelation of God in Christ need be an individual enterprise. Rather, we have the Scriptures, the witness of the historic church, the faith of the gathered communities in which we participate, etc. as sources.
Exist,
Well again I want to thank you for stimulating my mind. It seems that this conversation is reaching its end, although I'm sure it will "rise again" in some other form.
In closing, with regard to the "inspiration" of Scripture it seems that I haven't presented the clearest case of my understanding about this phenomenon, which means that I will continue to study and think of how I can be more clear in the future. And then maybe we can discuss the issue again.
In reference to the "decrees" of God, I think that this is a very difficult and deep part of theology. As a matter of fact, I don't think it can get too much deeper... the question of evil has always been a wonderfully challenging issue to address. But it is my understanding thus far that God is not only in control in a passive sense (ie. He allows things), but He is also in control in an active sense (ie. He allows things because He has ordained them). The Bible seems to declare this over and over again; from Job to Jesus (Acts 4:26-28) and all over in between.
And lastly, in order to try and be as clear as possible, I don't like the term "determinism." Determinism has its roots in fatalism, which is entirely atheistic and not biblical. Rather, divine decree and human responsibility, while paradoxical, are not contradictory. Remember Peter's denials of Jesus? Did Jesus simply make a good guess? How do we understand this? This issue is one of the many, many, many instances of divine sovereignty and human action being displayed in tensive harmony.
God's decrees govern through human actions, not an unguided fatalistic mechanism. Again, it's a both-and, not an either-or issue.
It has to be hard for any person who believes that God knows all things - past, present, and future. Unless we hold to the "openness" of God, we must deal with these issues (and I personally, reject Open Theism).
As the words of Jesus, Paul and rest of the NT writers are constantly imploring their hearers to "believe," I don't think the words "appointed" here can be reduced to determinism.
Of course all who believe will be saved. "Come to me..." The question is, "why do some persons believe and others not"? That's the root issue. Acts 13:48, among others (2 Tim 2:24-25; John 6:37,44,65; Matt 11:25-30, etc...) clearly state that those who were appointed to eternal life believed. The appointment preceeds the belief. Check the passages that I just listed. They testify of this truth.
God Bless My Friend,
Austin
Austin--
Well again I want to thank you for stimulating my mind. It seems that this conversation is reaching its end, although I'm sure it will "rise again" in some other form.
In closing, with regard to the "inspiration" of Scripture it seems that I haven't presented the clearest case of my understanding about this phenomenon, which means that I will continue to study and think of how I can be more clear in the future. And then maybe we can discuss the issue again.
In reference to the "decrees" of God, I think that this is a very difficult and deep part of theology. As a matter of fact, I don't think it can get too much deeper... the question of evil has always been a wonderfully challenging issue to address. But it is my understanding thus far that God is not only in control in a passive sense (ie. He allows things), but He is also in control in an active sense (ie. He allows things because He has ordained them). The Bible seems to declare this over and over again; from Job to Jesus (Acts 4:26-28) and all over in between.
And lastly, in order to try and be as clear as possible, I don't like the term "determinism." Determinism has its roots in fatalism, which is entirely atheistic and not biblical. Rather, divine decree and human responsibility, while paradoxical, are not contradictory. Remember Peter's denials of Jesus? Did Jesus simply make a good guess? How do we understand this? This issue is one of the many, many, many instances of divine sovereignty and human action being displayed in tensive harmony.
God's decrees govern through human actions, not an unguided fatalistic mechanism. Again, it's a both-and, not an either-or issue.
It has to be hard for any person who believes that God knows all things - past, present, and future. Unless we hold to the "openness" of God, we must deal with these issues (and I personally, reject Open Theism).
As the words of Jesus, Paul and rest of the NT writers are constantly imploring their hearers to "believe," I don't think the words "appointed" here can be reduced to determinism.
Of course all who believe will be saved. "Come to me..." The question is, "why do some persons believe and others not"? That's the root issue. Acts 13:48, among others (2 Tim 2:24-25; John 6:37,44,65; Matt 11:25-30, etc...) clearly state that those who were appointed to eternal life believed. The appointment preceeds the belief. Check the passages that I just listed. They testify of this truth.
Thank you for trying to explain this more. As you note, this conversation probably is at its end and, given the fact that it will undoubtedly come up somewhere else, I will let you have the last word. Thanks again, and I hope to have more conversations in the future!
you must read cOpqyhac [URL=]burberry wallet[/URL] with confident ZCvsyzYg [URL= ] [/URL]
Post a Comment
<< Home