Pope Francis denies Sola Scriptura, affirms Sola Ecclesia

“The Word of God Precedes and Exceeds the Bible”: Pope Francis on Scripture and the Church

Leonardo De Chirico: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/vatican-files-no-20.php

The first weeks of the new papacy were marked by what seemed new and extraordinary, but now the Popes has begun to do what a Pope in Rome normally does … the Pope highlighted the nature of Scripture and its relationship to the Word of God. The Bible, according to Francis, is “the testimony in written form to the Word of God”. Scripture is not associated with the Word of God on a one-to-one basis, but is rather perceived as a witness to something co-inherent, yet different. Following this comment, the Pope adds that “the Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible”.

In other words, the Pope does not endorse an identity view between Scripture and the Word but supports a dynamic view of the relationship between the Word of God and the Bible whereby Scripture witnesses to a Word that is before and beyond the Bible. The Word is present in the Bible but not confined to it. The Word is spoken and told by the Bible but the two do not coincide, being that the Bible is only a (partial) witness to the (fuller) Word. According to this view, what the Bible says is what the Word says, but what the Word says is not necessarily what the Bible says.

“Bishop of Rome” Bergoglio. Associated Press photo.

Scripture is Subject to the Church
Once the identity between the Word and the Bible is refused and substituted with the dynamism of a “living” Revelation that exceeds the Bible, there stems the need for an arbiter that is able to recognize the living Word in and beyond the Bible. While Protestant Liberalism submits the Bible to the final judgment of conscience or reason, Roman Catholicism believes that the Magisterium of the Church has ultimate authority over Scripture. This is what Pope Francis believes as well. In quoting Vatican II (which is actually a quotation of Vatican I), he says that “all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum, 12).

Of course, here Francis is recalling the Roman Catholic view that there is a profound unity between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, to the extent that one cannot be pitted against the other two and vice versa. The critical point here is that the Magisterium represents the only “living” voice of the Word, and its interpretation of Scripture is what really matters and what finally counts. So, instead of letting Scripture speak to the Church and over the Church by the Spirit, the Church is the only authorized voice of the Word which is witnessed in Scripture, and which also extends beyond it. Again, the Pope quotes Vatican II (which in turn quotes the Council of Trent) when he says that “it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (Dei Verbum, 9).

There will be other times when Pope Francis will address theological issues to express his views. However, this speech to the Pontifical Biblical Commission is an indication of the fact that the Pope will presumably not bring change to basic doctrinal issues and that he is rather conservative in his Roman Catholic theological outlook. Actually, the emphasis and tone of the speech seem to be willing to draw a [sharper] line between what the Roman Catholic Church believes and the “Scripture Alone” principle of the Protestant faith.

What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an – A Review

 Get the book here!

 http://store.aomin.org/what-every-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-quran-book.html

Here is TurretinFan's review:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-every-christian-needs-to-know.html

Grubbiness is next to godliness

There are conservative Bible scholars like Ken Mathews (in his commentary on Genesis) and E. J. Young (in his popular monograph entitled In the Beginning) who consider the depiction of God in Gen 2:7 to be anthropomorphic. In addition, Mathews considers 2:21-22 to be anthropomorphic, as well as 3:8. I have problems with that interpretation:

i) I freely grant that Scripture contains many anthropomorphic depictions of God. However, it’s insufficient to classify a representation as anthropomorphic. You need to be able to say what that stands for. Otherwise, what distinguishes an anthropomorphic depiction from a figurative depiction? If it’s not literal, what really happened? Did anything really happen?

So you can’t just say it’s anthropomorphic and leave it at that. Not, at least, if you adhere to the historicity of the account.

ii) But are the depictions of God in Gen 2-3 anthropomorphic? For one thing, if God actually made Adam and Eve by an act of special creation, how else would the narrator express that idea except by using idiomatic verbs normally employed in human manufacture? That’s the vocabulary he has at his disposal.

iii) In addition, the depictions of God in Gen 2-3 dovetail with Pentateuchal angelology. The Pentateuch contains many angelic apparitions, including the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is a theanthropic angelophany. Indeed, it’s arguably a Christophany (although the point I’m making in this post doesn’t turn on that identification).

I classify the depictions of God in Gen 2-3, not as anthropomorphisms, but angelophanies. (Theanthropic angelophanies, to be precise.)

In the Pentateuch, angels do rub shoulders with men. Occupy time and space. Interact with their physical surroundings.

iv) Finally, it’s instructive to compare Genesis with the Gospels:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (Gen 2:7).

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Gen 2:21-22).

And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue (Mk 7:33).

And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” (Mk 8:23).

Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud (Jn 9:6).

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22).

Seems to me that Jesus has a modus operandi that’s very reminiscent of God in Gen 2. Jesus isn’t afraid to get dirt under his fingernails. If Jesus doesn’t mind getting grubby, up-close-and-personal, when he performs a miracle, why assume God’s method is different in Gen 2?

The Historical Roots Of The Gospel Canon

One of the best books I've read on the historical origins of the four-gospel canon is C.E. Hill's Who Chose The Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). I want to quote some portions of it, though what I'm about to quote only represents a small portion of the evidence Hill discusses:

Historical Adam discussion

http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/historical_adam_discussion

Fiat lux

Nowadays, the interpretation of Gen 1 is often conducted with a view to modern science. Unbelievers attack Genesis as unscientific while believers defend Genesis.

Although it’s important for believers to defend Genesis, when the interpretation of Genesis is framed in terms of how Gen 1 relates to modern science, there’s a danger of shifting attention away from the primary interests of the narrator. Certainly the original audience wasn’t concerned with modern scientific questions. So at least some of the time we need to bracket the scientific controversy and try to approach the text from the historic vantagepoint of the original audience. What did this mean to them? What stood out for them?

For instance, Gen 1 lays great emphasis on the light/dark, day/night motif. For a reader who lived in preelectric times, what was the significance of light and dark, day and night?

i) Darkness evokes fear and apprehension. For one thing, there were dangerous nocturnal predators (e.g. Ps 104:20-22).

ii) Likewise, you could get lost in the dark. That might easily happen to those who had to travel on foot (e.g. Jn 12:35).

iii) Conversely, the major sources of light were sunlight and firelight. In that respect there’s probably an intertextual connection between sunlight and agriculture (Gen 1:14; 8:22). Sunlight was necessary for farming, and farming was necessary for food and wine. Keep in mind that wine was often substitute for water in a dry climate.

iv) The Pentateuch also describes certain types of sacred fire, light, or firelight. There’s the Shekinah, the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the perpetual flame (for burnt offerings), and divine lightning that consumes offerings. These reflect the presence of God or the revelation of God. The accent on light in Gen 1 sets the stage for these examples. 

v) In the ancient world, certain celestial phenomena were interpreted as omens (signs, portents, prodigies).

Lanier theology library

Several lectures on Christian topics by notable scholars here.

Johannine asides

Liberals think the Gospel of John is pious fiction. Lofty theology detached from real history. I’m going to test this theory against some statements in the Fourth Gospel.

22 On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” (Jn 6:22-25).

This is a cumbersome explanation–made more so by the parenthetical comment about the other boats. The reader already knows from earlier in the narrative how Jesus got across, but the crowd does not. It happened at night. They didn’t see it.

So we have this explanation about the source of their confusion. They know that Jesus didn’t take the same boat as the disciples. That much they saw. And that boat is gone. Until the other boats arrive, that’s it.

In addition, John pedantically distinguishes between the boat the disciples used and the other boats.

If John is writing pious fiction, why this unnecessary complication? Why this interlude? Why not have the crowd witness Jesus walk across the lake–either in broad daylight or under a full moon? Wouldn’t that be impressive?

Instead, the reader is treated to the kind of fastidious explanation you’d expect from a narrator who was there and went to great pains to sort out who did what, when, and where.

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. 2 Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private (Jn 7:1-10).

Commentators struggle over the discrepancy between what Jesus said and what he did. Did Jesus change his mind? Did Jesus lie to his stepbrothers?

The correct interpretation isn’t my immediate concern. I’d like to make a different point. If John was writing pious fiction, why would he interject this conspicuous aboutface into the story? He could smooth everything out with the stroke of a pen.

21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus Jn 12:21-22).

What a convoluted description! The Greeks come to Philip. The narrator throws in the extraneous detail about Philip’s address. After then talk to him, he–in turn–talks to Andrew. Then Philip and Andrew relay what the Greeks said to Jesus.

If John was writing pious fiction, why such a roundabout process? This only makes sense of that’s the way it actually happened.

2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? (Jn 14:2).

Commentators puzzle over the fact that there’s no record of Jesus telling them that beforehand. They sometimes try to solve the problem by ingenious punctuation.

Of course, Jesus undoubtedly said many things to the disciples that went unrecorded. So that omission is not surprising.

But if John was writing pious fiction, wouldn’t we expect him to include that in the backstory? Why write fiction, then refer the read back to something he didn’t write?

These are just a few examples. The Fourth Gospel has lots of editorial asides like these.

John’s practice reminds me of a family reunion where the oldest relative sets the record straight. A younger relative begins to relate a bit of family lore, then the older relative jumps in to correct him.

John writes like an eyewitness who “sees” these events in his retentive memory–as if they happened yesterday–and painstakingly records what he saw and heard, complete with parenthetical comments to forestall any confusion on the part of those who weren’t there.

Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 3)

(Part 1 of this series can be found here. Part 2 is here.)

Since all heterosexual marriages promote unity between the sexes in a way that's beneficial to society, don't we have reason to give all heterosexual marriages preferential treatment (including couples who are infertile, for example)? Notice that it's not just a matter of the unity of individuals, but also unity of the sexes. Homosexual marriage could be said to promote the unity of individuals, but heterosexual marriage has the added benefit of promoting unity between the sexes. The differences between the sexes and the complementarity involved in their union are of significant interest to a society. Even if somebody were to argue that homosexual marriage benefits society in other ways, the fact would remain that the benefits coming from the two relationships are different. Heterosexual marriage already exists, has existed for thousands of years, and involves a far larger number of people. Thus, if either relationship should be expected to accommodate the other, it ought to be homosexuality accommodating heterosexuality. The heterosexual relationship has traditionally been identified as marriage. Don't categorize the homosexual relationship in the same manner. Call it something else, and treat it differently. It is different.

The Abject Failure of the (Unique) 'Humean' Objection to Theological Determinism

http://shadflyofathens.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-abject-failure-of-the-humean-objection/

Is Apologetics a Failure?

Gregory Koukl is both exceptionally insightful, and exceptionally concise in this video.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/05/is-apologetics-a-failure-video.html





“I don’t think it’s the goal of apologetics to win the culture. I think it’s the goal of apologetics to win people, and once you win people, then you disciple them, and once you disciple them, in the process of their growing in Christ, then they have an impact in the culture.”

“We have success stories all over the place, we just have to do more of it.”

Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 2)

(Part 1 of this series can be found here.)

If you make your son go to bed at 8 P.M. when he's a five-year-old, but you let him stay up later when he's fifteen, are you an inconsistent hypocrite? Advocates of homosexual marriage often accuse their opponents of being inconsistent and hypocritical. For instance, why do you want to base our nation's public policy on Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality, but you don't want us to have laws based on something like the dietary rules found in the Pentateuch? Or if you think the government has reason to give preferential treatment to the heterosexual relationship, because that relationship can biologically produce children, then why don't you outlaw marriage between infertile heterosexuals? Aren't opponents of homosexual marriage being inconsistent and hypocritical?

Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 1)

Not all of these questions will be relevant to every advocate of homosexual marriage, since different individuals use different arguments. And you may think of some better questions than mine. But these questions are quick, easy ways to redirect conversations and get people to rethink their position on the issue. Depending on who you're interacting with, you may have to go into more depth.

Did Matthew Write The Gospel Attributed To Him?

This is a typical way of downplaying the significance of Matthew's gospel:

"We do not know the name of its author: the title found in our English versions ('The Gospel according to Matthew') was added long after the document's original composition. It is true that according to an old tradition the author was none other than Matthew, the tax collector mentioned in Matt 9:9. This tradition, however, arose some decades after the Gospel itself had been published, and scholars today have reasons to doubt its accuracy. For one thing, the author never identifies himself as Matthew, either in 9:9 or anywhere else. Also, certain features of this Gospel make it difficult to believe that this Matthew could have been the author. Why, for example, would someone who had spent so much time with Jesus rely on another author (Mark) for nearly two-thirds of his stories, often repeating them word for word (including the story of his own call to discipleship; 9:9-13)? And why would he never authenticate his account by indicating that he himself had seen these things take place?…Since he produced his Gospel in Greek, presumably for a Greek-speaking community, he was probably located somewhere outside Palestine…Matthew, an anonymous Jewish leader of the Christian community (assuming that his strong literary skills, indicative of a higher education, gave him a place of prominence there), penned a Gospel narrative to show that Jesus was in fact the Jewish messiah, who like Moses gave the law of God to his people." (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 114-115, 132)

As The Church Drifts To Sleep

Earlier this month, I wrote a post about the intellectual negligence of Christians and many of their allies, such as political conservatives. A recent thread on homosexual marriage at Kevin DeYoung's blog, found here, is an example of what I was referring to. Notice the disproportionately high level of participation by defenders of homosexual marriage. Notice how few people, at a popular conservative Evangelical blog, have been speaking up in defense of the Christian position on the issue. Notice how many of the claims made by the pro-homosexual-marriage side go unanswered. Notice how many good arguments against their position, good arguments we've brought up at this blog many times, go unmentioned. Some of the Christian participants make good points, but the Christian side of the exchange falls well short of what it ought to be. The arguments of the pro-homosexual-marriage side can and should be answered persuasively and by a large number of people, given that the discussion is occurring at a popular conservative Evangelical blog. Yet, that hasn't happened so far. And the same sort of scenario has played out in other places many times, in many contexts. It happens frequently at Christian web sites, at conservative political web sites, on television programs, etc.

I'm glad that a tiny minority of Christians do study issues like homosexual marriage in significant depth and provide good arguments for the Christian position. And that tiny minority receives support from other Christians to some extent. In that sense, I wouldn't say that the church is asleep on this issue. But given the astonishingly small percentage of Christians who do the sort of work that ought to be done on the issue, it seems accurate to say that the church is drifting to sleep, even if we aren't asleep yet. The culture is rapidly declining around us, and we're still so apathetic.

The same is occurring with a lot of other issues, not just homosexual marriage. As I said in my post earlier this month, we need to adapt to the changes that are occurring. We're not living in an equivalent of the 1950s or 1980s. There's been a significant societal shift, and the vast majority of Christians, as well as many of their allies in some contexts, aren't acting like it. Quoting Bible verses, telling people that your view of something like homosexual marriage is "just obvious", etc. isn't enough.

I also wonder what's going on in the lives of Christian men. Why aren't they showing leadership? Where's their desire to fight? When they see something like that thread at Kevin DeYoung's blog, why don't they have a stronger desire to argue for the truth and defend it against counterarguments? Even if some of them are occupied with other worthwhile things, surely (for reasons like the ones I discussed earlier this month) that can't be said of everybody who's remaining silent in these contexts. There's something radically wrong with the church, especially men, when so many people are so silent so often, with so much at stake.

Church v. parachurch

I’m going to comment on this post:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/05/church-vs-parachurch_14.html

But here's the problem. Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). Not the parachurch.

In what sense does Dan think Christ died for “the church”? In his post he seems to differentiate a church from a parachurch in terms of polity. So is he saying Christ died for church office? Did Christ die for eldership? Is that Paul’s point in 5:25?

Isn’t 5:25 just a variation on 5:2: “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

According to 5:2, isn’t it equally true to say that Christ died for Christian members of parachurches?

Christ is the Head of the church (Eph. 5:23), not of the parachurch.

Is 5:23 an antithetical statement? Does it mean Christ is the head of the church to the exclusion of other spheres of dominical headship?

But in 1:20-22, doesn’t Paul teach the universal headship of Christ? Christ’s headship of the church is a special case of his general headship over all things. So don’t parachurches come under the universal headship of Christ?

 He gave pastors and teachers for the equipping of saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:11).

Actually, 4:11 says “he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers.”

As a cessationist, Dan has to skip over “prophets.” Does Dan think a local church has to have prophets, as well as pastors and teachers, to be a real church?

What about evangelists? On the one hand, many “churches” have pastors, but no evangelists–while many parachurches have evangelists, but no pastors. So, according to 4:11, which counts as a church?

Likewise, many parachurches have Christian “teachers.” So does that make them churchly?

The church is created for, founded upon, and united in, its allegiance to the person of Christ who exercises His headship through the specific truths of God's Word (Jn. 8:31-32; 17:17, 21, 23; Eph. 4:4-5). The task of enlisting and cultivating students of Christ has been entrusted to it (Matt. 28:18-20).

Except that Mt 28:18-20 doesn’t say anything about “the church.” So why assign or confine those tasks to “the church”?

Let me rephrase that last thought as a question, and come at it from a different angle. Do you feel the need for instruction, for equipping for service? Do you see how much more there is to learn of Christ, of His person and work, of His will for your life? Are you boggled by the maze of differing and competing views, and longing for guidance and guarding amidst them? Christ already thought of all that, and more. He already made provision for those needs (Eph. 4:7ff.). The provision He made is men who are pastors and teachers, His personal ascension-gifts to His church.

But that’s selective. Eph 4:11 isn’t confined to pastors and teachers. In addition, we have a more extensive list in 1 Cor 12:4-11,28. So is Dan saying every local church, to be a real church, must have each category represented?

Likewise, consider Paul’s greetings to leaders of Roman house-churches (Rom 16). Paul greets 9 women (as well as 17 men). But I doubt that Dan classifies the women were elders or church officers. Were these house-churches not true churches unless they had pastors? Do we even know if all 7 or 8 house-churches in Rome had pastors?

BTW, I’ve discussed Heb 13:7,17 elsewhere.

So where do parachurch personnel come in? Well, that's the problem. Their leaders may or may not be (or be qualified to be) pastors.

And what if their leaders are pastors, or qualified to be pastors? Does that make them churches according to Dan’s criteria?

Can anyone see a parachurch organization in the NT?

I guess that depends, in part, on how we define a “church.” Does Dan think all these gifts must be exercised under the same roof to be a church?

If, by contrast, the “church” consists of variously gifted individuals, then shouldn’t we define the church distributively? Whenever or wherever gifted individuals exercise their spiritual gifts, they are doing the work of the church. The church is wherever gifted individuals happen to be exercising their spiritual gifts.

Isn’t that a logical take on Ephesians, which is referring to the universal church rather than the local church? The universal church must have all these categories represented–not every local church or Christian organization.

It looks as though Dan began with his desired conclusion, then cast about for prooftexts–instead of letting his conclusion arise from the prooftexts.

Those deleted tweets

Tony Reinke has written a post wherein John Piper explains his tweets.

Catholicism gone catholic

According to Il Papa:

[Pope Francis] told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.

"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.

"Just do good, and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment...

Of course, if Jesus has "redeemed" "everyone" including atheists, then why is doing good a "duty"? Why bother to do good?

Or are we all redeemed, but some are more redeemed than others?

If so, then I suppose one can do good to merit a bigger mansion in heaven. Or a place closer to the throne of God.

Okay, but still, what's wrong with the atheist who says, "Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin in this world, and have a lower place in heaven, thankyouverymuch"?

Caught in the cosmic machinery

http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/rachel-held-evans-denies-the-cat.html

When seconds count, police are minutes away

Britain has tough gun control laws, unlike us trigger-happy Americans. Leave it to the authorities to keep us safe:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/22/whoa-soldier-beheaded-by-radical-muslims-praising-allah-n1603743

http://news.sky.com/story/1094437/woolwich-assailants-filmed-hacking-attack

Is Adam just a symbol?

Difficult Scriptures: Romans 5:12-17

16 May by Jeff Dunn

12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. 14 Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. 15 But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. 16 And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12-17, NLT)

So, we have Paul writing that Adam is a symbol of Christ who was yet to come. Does this symbol have to have been real? Does our faith hang in the balance as to whether or not we believe in a historical Adam?

I normally don’t answer my own Difficult Scriptures question, but today I will, and then stand aside to hear your thoughts. To give my answer, I will have to lean heavily on what I learned from Michael Spencer about reading the Bible.

The Scriptures were given us for one reason, and one reason alone: To point us to Jesus. When we try to use the Scriptures to prove other points, we are going outside of the scope of its purpose. The story and symbol of Adam show us “little Adams” to be sinners in need of redemption. Redemption comes in Christ’s death and resurrection. If I focus on whether or not Adam is/was real, I take my eyes away from what God intends me to look at: Jesus. So I guess I’m saying it does not matter to me whether or not Adam was really real. The story of Adam points me to a very real Jesus.

Now, your thoughts?

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/difficult-scriptures-romans-512-17

This is one of the dumber things I’ve read lately, and the competition for dumb is ferocious. I don’t know if Jeff Dunn normally reasons at this level, or if he felt the importance of the issue merited a special kind of stupid.

i) To begin with, he apparently hangs his argument on a pop English translation. But typos doesn’t mean “symbol.” A type denotes an OT person, place, institution, or event that prefigures a counterpart in the Messianic age. A factual relation.

ii) However, even if it did mean “symbol,” that’s ambiguous. Even though all metaphors are symbolic, not all symbols are metaphorical. A symbol can be a real spacetime object. It’s not just a literary device.

iii) As for “pointing us to Jesus,” if that’s all that matters, why does Jesus need to be real? After all, you can point someone to a fictitious superhero.

iv) If all that matters is looking at Jesus, then who needs the Christian afterlife? As long as you were looking at Jesus when you died, you can pass into oblivion looking at Jesus.

v) Notice Jeff doesn’t make an effort to seriously exegete Rom 5:12-21. Instead, he superimposes an extraneous grid on the passage. Disregard the specific claims of the text and retreat into the mock piety of “looking at Jesus.” This is just an obvious rearguard maneuver by someone who’s lost faith in historical revelation. 

Protective mothers and abortive mothers

This is what motherhood is supposed to be:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/megan-futrell-infant-baby-died-oklahoma-tornado_n_3320390.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Is John Piper the next Pat Robertson?

John Piper’s recent tweet on the Oklahoma tornado has provoked a knee-jerk response. There’s even a malicious effort to create a defamatory narrative about Piper as another Pat Robertson.

Now, I don’t think it’s necessary for Piper to comment on every natural disaster that comes down the pike. It would make more sense for him to have a general treatment which he refers people to when tragedies like this take place. After all, natural disasters happen repeatedly, so it’s not as if you’re going to have something new to say about every new catastrophe.

Likewise, I don’t think Twitter is the best medium for commenting on natural disasters. And quoting Job without context invites ambiguity.

That said, I don’t share the outraged reaction to his tweet.

On his Facebook wall, Jeremy Pierce is making some customarily judicious observations on this manufactured controversy. There are also some judicious comments on Denny Burk’s post.

http://www.dennyburk.com/jobs-suffering-and-ours/

All Scripture is God-breathed

The part of 2 Tim 3 that everyone likes to quote and that becomes the bedrock of their doctrines of scripture is, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction…”

Scripture is God-breathed. Yes!

But wait! There’s more!

Or, perhaps better put–wait, you forgot a part!

The verse before this presents a significant qualification: “From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus.”

Did you see it?

Scripture isn’t just “good.” Full stop. It is good for a particular purpose. That purpose is Christological. Scripture is not rightly read as scripture when it is given its historical, scientific, or critical meaning. It is not rightly read as scripture until it is read as a witness to, or cultivating a wisdom that inclines us toward, the crucified and risen Christ.

In Romans, Paul says similar things: the righteousness of God (in the crucified and risen Christ) is borne witness to by the Law and the Prophets; Christ is the end/goal of the Law.

Paul is faithful in what he says about Adam, not because he rightly identifies Adam as the biological precursor of all subsequent humanity, but because he sees in Adam a way to understand how the crucified and risen Christ is the beginning of God’s plan for a new humanity at the acme of new creation.

What did God breathe? Words of wisdom. Words of wisdom that lead to salvation. Words of wisdom that lead to salvation through faith in Christ.

If we read and find only words of science or dogma or ethics or history, the Bible has not yet become for us the living and active and inspired word of God.

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2013/05/05/what-exactly-did-god-breathe/

Before commenting on the specifics, I’d like to make some general observations about 2 Tim 3:15-16:

i) It’s often thought that because v15 refers to the OT, v16 must have the same referent. However, there may be a progression in Paul’s argument, where v16 is more general than v15.

ii) Apropos (i), Paul evidently uses “Scripture” in 1 Tim 5:18 to designate a saying from the Gospel of Luke. Moreover, Paul regards his own teaching as divinely inspired and divinely authoritative (e.g. 1 Cor 2:13; 14:37; 1 Thes 4:2). Therefore, there’s no reason to think Paul is restricting Scripture in v16 to OT Scripture.

iii) Of course, liberals generally deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (Luke Timothy Johnson is a notable exception). But that creates a dilemma for the liberal. If the Pastorals weren’t written by Paul, but by a later author, then wouldn’t that be even more reason to think v16 might include NT writings as Scripture? After all, the liberal argument is that the Pastorals, being so much later, reflect a more advanced ecclesiastical and/or theological outlook. So that would fit with a retrospective canonical consciousness.

If, on the one hand, Paul wrote the Pastorals, then we know Paul regarded his own Gospel as direct divine revelation (e.g. Gal 1). But if (ex hypothesi), on the other hand, Paul didn’t write the Pastorals, then these would reflect further theological development–in which case there would be nothing anachronistic about the author treating NT writings as Scripture.

iv) There’s a question about whether pasa should be rendered as “all” or “every.” But it makes no ultimate difference whether Paul is attributing inspiration to Scripture collectively or distributively, for it amounts to the same thing.

v) There’s a question as to whether the clause should be rendered “Every Scripture is God-breathed, and useful for…” or “Every Scripture that is God-breathed is useful for…”

Major commentators like Mounce, Marshall, and Towner argue for the former construction.

vi) What does Paul mean by the compound “God-breathed”? I can think of two related reasons:

a) It triggers associations with the Spirit of God as the agent of revelation and inspiration.

b) It evokes Scripture as divine speech. The spoken word, committed to writing.

As for Daniel Kirk’s contentions:

i) To say that Scripture is useful for leading readers to salvation is not to say that Scripture is only good for that particular purpose. It’s not an exclusive or contrastive claim.

ii) The doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture isn’t confined to a single prooftext like 1 Tim 3:16. Rather, it’s a theological construct, with many lines of evidence.

iii) The fact that in the Pastorals, Paul appeals to historical precedents like the Exodus, the life of Abraham, and Korah’s rebellion, explodes Kirk’s false dichotomy between historical knowledge and soteriological knowledge.

iv) Paul sets his teaching in contrast to his opponents, who retail in “myths” (1 Tim 1:4; 2 Tim 4:4; Tit 1:14). As Towner explains:

The term “myth” has a long history of use prior to the NT, through which it comes to mean a fable or far-fetched story, often about the gods; most importantly, it can stand as a category meaning essentially falsehood (109).

So it would run counter to the polemical perspective of the Pastorals to treat the account of Adam as a fictional story.

"Retributive violence"

Peter Enns has a blind post:

But what about God’s retributive violence–where God exacts swift judgment in the form of physical brutality against his own people for disobeying?

The question that is as old as the Christian faith is: “How does all this square with how Jesus speaks of God?” The key word here is forgiveness. The issue is not simply that Jesus says we should forgive each other. Rather, by forgiving each other we reflect the heart of God.

Of course, for both the Old and New Testaments, there are other examples we could look at. But the point remains: If Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), how can we hold all this together? How can these two views of God be reconciled? Are they even supposed to be reconciled?

One answer will not do, and we need to nip it in the bud: “God can do whatever he wants to, and that includes mercilessly punishing sinners among his own people by killing them.” That misses the entire point. The issue here is how God himself is portrayed differently in the Old Testament and then in the New.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/05/is-god-out-to-get-you-of-forgive-you-retributive-violence-and-the-gospel/

What’s blind about this supposed dichotomy is that, on the one hand, the OT has a great deal to say about God’s mercy, compassion, and loving kindness, while–on the other hand–the NT (including the Gospels) has a lot to say about God’s retributive eschatological judgment. So the dichotomy between a merciless God of the OT and a merciful God of the NT is illusory–and obviously so.

The Failure Of Naturalistic Theories To Explain The Shroud Of Turin

Here's a thread discussing the failure of various naturalistic theories to explain the Shroud of Turin. We don't just need to explain how the image could have been produced, but also why it happened with Jesus in particular and not with other individuals, the timing of the image formation (around the time when other evidence suggests Jesus was resurrected), and how the removal of the body from the Shroud didn't do more to disturb the bloodstains and damage the cloth. I think that Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation for the totality of the phenomena. But what I want to highlight here is something Barrie Schwortz wrote in the comments section of the thread linked above. Schwortz is an advocate of the view that the Shroud image formed as a result of a Maillard reaction, and Ray Rogers held the same view, yet Schwortz writes:

Ray Rogers told me personally that he believed, “Something else was at work with the Maillard reaction,” but he didn’t know what that was and didn’t live long enough to explore it.

Keep in mind, too, that the Shroud would still have high evidential significance for Christianity even if some natural process, like a Maillard reaction, explains the Shroud or part of it. The cloth would still give us evidence for Jesus' existence, the accuracy of early Christian accounts of his death, etc.

Rogue government

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/sharyl-attkissons-computers-compromised-164456.html

Obama's Kulturkampf

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/05/irs-also-targeted-religious-groups/

Center for A-Lincolnism Studies

https://www.facebook.com/alincolnism

Where are the “sexual outliers” now?

From infant theologian Nathan Rinne:

Polygamy is no longer an outlier for many social scientists, and much serious work has already been done laying the groundwork for its defense (see here, as well as this recent Slate article arguing for it).  Polygamy, however, is small potatoes.  Polyamory, the idea that many persons sexually involved with one another should be able to accrue government support, benefits, and legal structure to assist in their lifestyle, has a serious academic following (see here and here ; also note it’s happening in Brazil here).  And what about the many “gay marriage” advocates in academia who admit that they want to get rid of – move “beyond” –  traditional marriage altogether? (see here and here)  What about those in the gay rights movement – not a small number – who believe the “next step” should be to help straight people get over their obsession – the hypocritical obsession! – with monogamous marriage?  (see here and here and here).  And what about the fact that for many, their conception of “civil rights”, grounded on just what I do not know, is the card that would trump all factual reality?  In other words, whether or not children in general do better with a mom and a dad, to take one example, is irrelevant (see here – so what is the point of insisting that conservatives provide evidence that pornography is harmful?).  Jerry Sandusky aside, pedophilia has been gradually losing its stigma – as long as it is done ethically of course! – and there have been serious academic books written defending it (see here and here; interesting related links here and here).