Saturday, August 23, 2008
Chapter 4 - Erik Cooper
Chapter 4 ties in significantly with other the chapters in the first part of the book (keep in mind that I have only read up to ch 4 at this point.) Ch4 focuses on the authority that scripture has in the lives of Christians. It is important for us as Christians to believe that the Bible is the word of God spoken to us, and that therefore it is complete and accurate. If the Bible truly is the word of God, then it can't have any errors (since God would not make a mistake in his word). I thought that this chapter was interesting, but I don't have a whole lot to say about it.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Aug. 19 - Aug. 25 2008 Chapter 4
For this week, we will be covering Chapter 4 - "The Four Characteristics of Scripture: (1) Authority".
Chapter 3 - Tim Mast
This chapter talks of the modern Canon and how it was decided which books should be in the modern Bible. This topic always comes up when some researcher finds another of the 'lost books of the Bible'.
I read a great article once talking about this topic. He addressed if from two ways. He said that we must believe that either a) the Bible is the inspired word of God or b) the Bible is the collected works of the Church. Basically, we have to either believe that God exists or he doesn't.
In the first case, God exists and the Bible is his inspired Word. If this is the case, we can rightfully assume that He wants to keep his Word intact and will take steps to ensure that this is the case. In this case, there can be no 'lost books' because the Bible is being protected by God and none of the books could ever become lost.
In the second case, we can argue from a standpoint that God doesn't exist. This is helpful when speaking to non-believers because we can avoid the entire topic of God's existence for this conversation. In this case, the Bible is simply the collected writings of the Church. In this scenario, the Church is the one that decided what gets in and what doesn't. Anything that doesn't fit with what the Church believed at the time of the assembly of the canon is thrown out. In this case also, it is hard to argue that a book of the Bible was 'lost'. It might be that the church didn't include it because it didn't represent what they believed, or it might be that the church at the time of the canon didn't know about the existence of the book. In either case, the book is not included in the Bible because the Church said that it doesn't belong. So a book can't be 'lost' because it was never included in the first place.
The example that the author used was the idea of someone writing their memoirs. The author might right down everything they can possibly think of. Then, the author goes through his notes and throws out things that are not good representations of what he believes. A person going through the trash later cannot claim to have found something of significance regarding the beliefs of the author. Anything in the trash, by definition, is not something that the author believes. In the same way, the fact that there were writings about 'church-stuff' at the same time as the books of the Bible doesn't mean that these books were 'lost'. This same old tired argument comes up every 15-20 years when some academic rediscovers the 'Gospel of Thomas' and the mainstream media trots out the tired lines of a lost book of the Bible being rediscovered.
Either argument is effective, but, being a Christian, I know that the first one holds true. The Bible exists in its current form because a sovereign Lord protected it to deliver His Words to his children. And that's why we're having this conversation today.
I read a great article once talking about this topic. He addressed if from two ways. He said that we must believe that either a) the Bible is the inspired word of God or b) the Bible is the collected works of the Church. Basically, we have to either believe that God exists or he doesn't.
In the first case, God exists and the Bible is his inspired Word. If this is the case, we can rightfully assume that He wants to keep his Word intact and will take steps to ensure that this is the case. In this case, there can be no 'lost books' because the Bible is being protected by God and none of the books could ever become lost.
In the second case, we can argue from a standpoint that God doesn't exist. This is helpful when speaking to non-believers because we can avoid the entire topic of God's existence for this conversation. In this case, the Bible is simply the collected writings of the Church. In this scenario, the Church is the one that decided what gets in and what doesn't. Anything that doesn't fit with what the Church believed at the time of the assembly of the canon is thrown out. In this case also, it is hard to argue that a book of the Bible was 'lost'. It might be that the church didn't include it because it didn't represent what they believed, or it might be that the church at the time of the canon didn't know about the existence of the book. In either case, the book is not included in the Bible because the Church said that it doesn't belong. So a book can't be 'lost' because it was never included in the first place.
The example that the author used was the idea of someone writing their memoirs. The author might right down everything they can possibly think of. Then, the author goes through his notes and throws out things that are not good representations of what he believes. A person going through the trash later cannot claim to have found something of significance regarding the beliefs of the author. Anything in the trash, by definition, is not something that the author believes. In the same way, the fact that there were writings about 'church-stuff' at the same time as the books of the Bible doesn't mean that these books were 'lost'. This same old tired argument comes up every 15-20 years when some academic rediscovers the 'Gospel of Thomas' and the mainstream media trots out the tired lines of a lost book of the Bible being rediscovered.
Either argument is effective, but, being a Christian, I know that the first one holds true. The Bible exists in its current form because a sovereign Lord protected it to deliver His Words to his children. And that's why we're having this conversation today.
Chapter 2 - Erik Cooper
(This post was pulled from a comment that Erik posted before he was given posting rights. It has been pulled to the front page to give it more exposure. - Tim)
One thing that came to mind reading this chapter is the gift of prophecy. Page 51 says "God's words as spoken through human lips ceased to be given when the New Testament canon was completed". After reading that, my mind went to spiritual gifts, specifically prophecy, which I believe continues in the present day. So I was wondering if he meant that he does not believe in prophecy, or if he had some other meaning in mind. Luckily there was a footnote leading to chapter 53 (about gifts of the holy spirit). I admit to cheating and reading ahead a bit. His definition of Prophecy is "telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind" and later he notes that prophets "did not speak with authority equal to the words of scripture."
I guess that if you had asked me, I would have said that any word (if tested and found to be truly from God) would be full of authority. Of course, such a word (if truly from God) would never contradict what we have been given in the scriptures. I will (in a vain attempt to stay somewhat on topic) reserve judgment on the contents of chapter 53 until we get to that part (enough material there for a thorough discussion).
Another piece that interested me (and this was made clear in the introduction) was the author's belief that scripture should be taken literally. I expect that this will be more of a discussion as we get to later chapters (creation, for example) but I noticed it when he brought up "let there be light" as an example of God speaking. I tend to believe that not all Biblical passages are designed to be taken literally, and it is my hope that throughout this study (the first 8 chapters talk a lot about this topic) we will be able to determine how to correctly interpret scripture - be it literally, metaphorically, or in some other way. The creation chapter should be especially interesting in this regard.
Chapter 2 - Tim Mast
One of the things that hit me in this chapter was the same thing that Erik talked about in his comments on the chapter when he mentioned God speaking through human lips. I, like Erik, immediately thought of the gift of prophecy and how that applied to the topic at hand. However, I came at it from a different direction.
I believe that God can and does speak to people in modern times through the gift of prophecy. I believe that it is entirely fitting and proper that people ask for words from God. However, we no longer live in a time when we receive Grudem's type 2 Word of God (God's words of personal address). That means that every word of God that is given to us is subject to misinterpretation both by us and, if the word is given to someone else, on the part of the receiver. This means that that we, when we are the one's receiving and passing on the word, should be humble in recognizing that our own prejudices and opinions may color our judgement of what we belief God has said. Likewise, on the receiving end, we need to recognize that the word may have been colored by the opinions of the giver.
This may sound rather negative and one could rightfully ask if I believe that God can pass on an accurate word at all in these circumstances. Certainly I do. However, I believe that it is up to the Holy Spirit in each believer to help interpret these words. We must always test each word and ask God to make clear what is being said. It's not enough for a person to simply say "This is from God" to make us believe something. Each word must be tested to see that it is true.
This also means that we, when giving a word, should be humble. I personally am much more likely to listen to someone who begins "I think that God is giving me this word for you ... " than I am to someone who begins "God has told me to tell you ...". The first phrasing just says to me that the person recognizes that we, as humans, are imperfect communication channels and is being sensitive to this fact.
Why do I bring this up at all? Whenever we get on the topic of God speaking or prophesy, I'm reminded of the verses in Deuteronomy that Grudem quotes on pg. 49 (Deut. 18:18-20). In this Old Testament verse, God commands that if the words of a prophet don't come true, he should be put to death. I don't believe that this holds true today, but I do believe that the same God who uttered this command is the same one that we worship today. And his character does not change. When the punishment for speaking falsely hasn't changed, I think that the sentiment behind the verse has not. God does not like for us to put words in his mouth. And He's very unhappy with those people that do. This in itself should make us very sensitive to our words when we're passing on a word that we have received.
I believe that God can and does speak to people in modern times through the gift of prophecy. I believe that it is entirely fitting and proper that people ask for words from God. However, we no longer live in a time when we receive Grudem's type 2 Word of God (God's words of personal address). That means that every word of God that is given to us is subject to misinterpretation both by us and, if the word is given to someone else, on the part of the receiver. This means that that we, when we are the one's receiving and passing on the word, should be humble in recognizing that our own prejudices and opinions may color our judgement of what we belief God has said. Likewise, on the receiving end, we need to recognize that the word may have been colored by the opinions of the giver.
This may sound rather negative and one could rightfully ask if I believe that God can pass on an accurate word at all in these circumstances. Certainly I do. However, I believe that it is up to the Holy Spirit in each believer to help interpret these words. We must always test each word and ask God to make clear what is being said. It's not enough for a person to simply say "This is from God" to make us believe something. Each word must be tested to see that it is true.
This also means that we, when giving a word, should be humble. I personally am much more likely to listen to someone who begins "I think that God is giving me this word for you ... " than I am to someone who begins "God has told me to tell you ...". The first phrasing just says to me that the person recognizes that we, as humans, are imperfect communication channels and is being sensitive to this fact.
Why do I bring this up at all? Whenever we get on the topic of God speaking or prophesy, I'm reminded of the verses in Deuteronomy that Grudem quotes on pg. 49 (Deut. 18:18-20). In this Old Testament verse, God commands that if the words of a prophet don't come true, he should be put to death. I don't believe that this holds true today, but I do believe that the same God who uttered this command is the same one that we worship today. And his character does not change. When the punishment for speaking falsely hasn't changed, I think that the sentiment behind the verse has not. God does not like for us to put words in his mouth. And He's very unhappy with those people that do. This in itself should make us very sensitive to our words when we're passing on a word that we have received.
Aug. 12 - Aug. 18, 2008 Chapter 3
For this week, we will be covering Chapter 3 - "The Canon of Scripture".
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Chapter 3 - Erik Cooper
The author gets it right early in this chapter, when he describes the correct determination of scriptural canon as being of "utmost importance". As Christians, we base our lives on the Bible as the word of God, so it is critical that we have the correct text. I found the historical information to be very interesting, as I have not ready much about this subject. I have faith that the books in our Bible are that which God intended, so I don't have much to say here.
One part that the author did not discuss is the importance of accurate translations. I don't know Greek or Hebrew (and I assume that is true for most of the people reading this), so I rely on the wisdom of trained interpreters who have translated the original texts into English. The good news is that (even though there are a variety of translations on the market) most translations say generally the same thing. This provides some comfort for the majority of Christians who are dependent on these translations.
It is interesting, though, to examine differences in various translations. Some are very accurately translated while some are more of a paraphrase. I tend to prefer the more literal translations (I have a New American Standard that I really like), but easier-to-read translations can be great tools to make the scriptures available to a wide audience. I do have some concerns about the paraphrased versions. For example, take John 1:14
NASB: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The Message: The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.
To me, "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." just does not have the same ring, or even quite the same meaning. This is not to say that translations such as The Message are without value, but that we should apply caution when we read a translation that risks changing the meaning in order to increase readability.
One part that the author did not discuss is the importance of accurate translations. I don't know Greek or Hebrew (and I assume that is true for most of the people reading this), so I rely on the wisdom of trained interpreters who have translated the original texts into English. The good news is that (even though there are a variety of translations on the market) most translations say generally the same thing. This provides some comfort for the majority of Christians who are dependent on these translations.
It is interesting, though, to examine differences in various translations. Some are very accurately translated while some are more of a paraphrase. I tend to prefer the more literal translations (I have a New American Standard that I really like), but easier-to-read translations can be great tools to make the scriptures available to a wide audience. I do have some concerns about the paraphrased versions. For example, take John 1:14
NASB: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The Message: The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.
To me, "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." just does not have the same ring, or even quite the same meaning. This is not to say that translations such as The Message are without value, but that we should apply caution when we read a translation that risks changing the meaning in order to increase readability.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Aug. 4 - Aug. 11, 2008 Chapter 2
For this week, we will be covering Chapter 2 - "The Word of God".
As always, if anyone would like to have posting ability on this blog, drop me an email or post a comment here and I will send you an invite.
As always, if anyone would like to have posting ability on this blog, drop me an email or post a comment here and I will send you an invite.
Chapter 1 - Tim Mast
Two things in Chapter 1 really jumped out at me this week.
The first was in the section regarding the benefits of systematic theology. The author said that two of the reasons for studying systematic theology were to help us "overcome wrong ideas" and to "be able to make better decisions later on new questions of doctrine that may arise." This really hit home for me because of some things that I've had come up recently regarding individuals that we as Christians should endorse. In this situation, I have come to realize how much I really can be lacking at times regarding my ability to clearly express my concerns certain situations. It was a situation where I was fairly convinced that the situation was not right, but I just wasn't able to express my concerns in a straightforward and cogent manner. I'm looking forward to spending more time in the Word in a concentrated manner so that when this type of situation comes up again, I am able to express my concerns in a more organized way.
The second was were the author mentioned that we should "study systematic theology with others". He goes on to say that some of the most effective learning can take place "in informal conversations among students who are attempting to understand Bible doctrines for themselves". I'm hoping that this blog can become an informal conversation that leads to this same effect. Otherwise, it will just be me talking into an echo chamber.
The first was in the section regarding the benefits of systematic theology. The author said that two of the reasons for studying systematic theology were to help us "overcome wrong ideas" and to "be able to make better decisions later on new questions of doctrine that may arise." This really hit home for me because of some things that I've had come up recently regarding individuals that we as Christians should endorse. In this situation, I have come to realize how much I really can be lacking at times regarding my ability to clearly express my concerns certain situations. It was a situation where I was fairly convinced that the situation was not right, but I just wasn't able to express my concerns in a straightforward and cogent manner. I'm looking forward to spending more time in the Word in a concentrated manner so that when this type of situation comes up again, I am able to express my concerns in a more organized way.
The second was were the author mentioned that we should "study systematic theology with others". He goes on to say that some of the most effective learning can take place "in informal conversations among students who are attempting to understand Bible doctrines for themselves". I'm hoping that this blog can become an informal conversation that leads to this same effect. Otherwise, it will just be me talking into an echo chamber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)