Monday, July 20, 2009

Paul, Believers, & Blessings

Series Title: Part 1 (1-3): Our Wealth

Lesson Title: #3 – Paul, Believers & Blessings

Text: Ephesians 1:1-2

As we continue to look at the book of Ephesians, we will continue to plow into the field of the riches God has provided for us in Christ. Just as in the parable of the tenant farmer (Matt 13:44) that sold everything to but the field so that by owning the field, he owned the buried treasure. We too, have riches that are here in this book ready to be mined and claimed by faith and careful study. Unlike the riches of the stock market and other worldly investments that are subject to the ups and downs of the economy these cannot be lost or taken away because of greed or mismanagement. God's riches in Christ are eternal – never to run out or be depleted.

Beginning in verse one, it says that Paul was an Apostle appointed by Jesus Christ by the will of God. As an Apostle, he speaks for God. He is the mouthpiece for Jesus Christ. Do you realize there are only 14 men in history that could call themselves Apostles? Fourteen; the first twelve, Judas dropped out then the thirteenth was added, Mathias, and later on the fourteenth was Paul. Only 14 men could be said to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. That is a mouthpiece for Jesus Christ, especially credentialed and chosen for a special era. (Ephesians 2:20) calls them "foundation people". However, we believe they passed away with the passing of that 1^st century era. They were the Scripture writers; they were the ones who laid down the Apostle's doctrine. They were the ones who spoke for Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 9:1, he says Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Which was the basic qualification, you had to personally see the risen Christ. Are you not my work in the Lord? Aren't you proof of it? So it is that God took this man who was a Christian persecutor, persecuting the faithful. Turned him around, made him an Apostle. That authority came from Jesus Christ and the will of God. And those two are always in agreement.

By the way, let me run by you what the Apostles duties were: First, they were to preach the gospel, (1 Cor. 1:17). Secondly, they were to teach and pray, (Acts 6:4); "Giving ourselves continually to the word and prayer." Thirdly, to do miracles, (2 Cor. 12:1, Acts 14:23). Lastly, they were to build leaders for the church. These were some of the duties of the Apostles, who were given that appointment by the resurrected Savior.

Additionally, as you look at verse one, you will notice that it says that it was written to Ephesus. However, the word "Ephesus" does not appear in all the manuscripts. In some manuscripts there is a blank. And there's a reason for that. In this Epistle, there is no local mention of any person. There is no mention of any city in this letter. There's no statement about any individuals at any congregation. And the reason there is a blank, most scholars feel, is that this is a circular letter sent to the churches of Asia Minor, one of which was Ephesus and every church would then put its own name in the blank. So, we too can put our church name there.

After Paul introduces himself as someone who's authority comes of Christ Jesus by the will of God, Paul then describes the believers he's addressing. In verse 1 it states, "The saints who are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." He calls Christians by two terms, the saints and the faithful. And that covers both sides. From God's side He's made us holy, from our side we exercise faith, we are the saints divine definition; the faithful human definition. And it is by virtue of being full of faith that we have been made saints. So a saint is anybody who is a Christian.

Everyone of us has been made holy (hagios). Every one of us has been set apart unto God in Christ. Every one of us has been made righteous in the righteousness of Christ. We are the saints, we are the faithful. We have believed in Christ and He has made us holy. Wow, isn't that a great beginning? We've been made holy in Christ.

"In Christ" by the way, is inseparable with being "saints & faithful." It means that the Christian is one who not only believes in Christ, but they are in a real sense "in Christ." As Christians we belong to Him, we are united to Him, we are joined to Him. Paul uses quite often the description of the body here in Ephesians and in 1 Corinthians.

We find the same idea in Romans 5:12-21, where Paul works out a great analogy and contrast. He says that we were all originally in Adam. Adam was not only the first man, he was also the representative of the entire human race. Everyone who has been born into this world was in Adam, a part of Adam, joined to Adam, with the result that Adam's action has brought its consequences upon all. But the Apostle goes on to argue that, as we were all 'in Adam', so we are now — those of us who are Christian—'in Christ.' As 'in Adam', so 'in Christ.' The Christian is one who is 'in Christ.' All that the Lord Jesus Christ has done becomes true of us.

Again, in Romans 6, Paul works it out and says that when Christ was crucified we were crucified with Him; when He died, we died with Him; when He was buried we were buried with Him; when He rose again we rose with Him. He is seated in the heavenly places, Paul says in Ephesians 2:6, 'God hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ.' We are seated in the heavenly places with Christ at this moment because we are 'in Christ.' What a tremendous, staggering, overwhelming truth—I am a part of Christ, I belong to Him, I am a member of the body of Christ! I am not my own, I have been 'bought (purchased) with a price.' I am in Christ. He is the Head, I am one of the members. All the blessings we enjoy as Christians come to us because we are 'in Christ.' It is 'of His fullness we have received, and grace upon grace.' 'I am the true vine', says our Lord Himself, 'and ye are the branches.'

Thus, we see the authority of Paul, and then Paul describes the Christian in three ways – Saint, faithful & in Christ. Moving on to verse 2 we have the results, our blessings.

The double blessings are grace and peace. The first one grace be to you is an incredible and great statement and was the typical greeting of the day. Grace is the New Testament word charis, it means kindness of God toward undeserving people. And when they met, they would say grace be to you. It was like saying, "I wish to be gracious to you." Additionally, it had a theological meaning. It meant something to them in their faith, it was a reminder that they were what they were by grace. "God's loving grace to you." "My graciousness to you." That would be a constant reminder that we are what we are by grace.

Secondly, there is the Old Testament word shalom, the New Testament equivalent is the Greek word eirene and it means peace. Grace is the fountain and peace is the stream. Because we have grace from God we have peace with God. It is because of His grace that we have His peace. There would be no peace without His grace.

Thus, we have Paul's authority, the description of believers, and the blessings of grace and peace. And, of course, it all comes from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul's message throughout the book of Ephesians is that you might understand God's grace, that you might possess His peace because you are a part of His church and you have at your disposal His infinite riches.

All that is for you, but only if you are a Christian. If this is so, we in all reality can't talk about our weakness or helplessness; as He is the Life, and you are joined to that Life, you are part of the Life, you are a branch in the Vine, 'in Christ.'

In closing, let me encourage you by making two brief comments.

First, why do you think that the Apostle, in describing the Christian, puts these three things in the following order—'saints', 'faithful', and 'in Christ'? The answer is very simple.

The first and the most obvious thing about the Christian always should be the fact that he or she is a 'saint.' The Apostle had the City of Ephesus in his mind's eye when he wrote his letter; he saw as it were an oasis in the desert of wealth, paganism, sorcery and loose living. Standing out in the desert, however, is this green oasis — the Church, the saints. That is a very good way of looking at the Christian. Anyone looking at this world should at once be impressed by this fact that there are certain people in it who stand out and are quite different because they are 'saints.' That should be the first impression we make; everyone — neighbors, friends, colleagues and fellow-workers, should know that we are Christians. It should be obvious, it should stand out because we are what we are, because of these things that are true of us. We read of our blessed Lord that 'he could not be hid' Mk 7:24), and that should be true of us in this sense; it should be impossible to conceal the fact. But it does not mean that I preach and force my Christianity upon people, and make myself an awkward person. I believe it is rather a quality of saintliness, something that is full of grace and charm, a faint likeness to the Lord Himself. It should be evident and obvious that we are a separate people, a different people, because we are a holy people. Jesus also talks about it in His Sermon on the Mount, where He talks about Christians being "salt and light" and that a "city on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:13-16).

Secondly, let me say that it is incredibly important in keeping intact the relationship between a saint and being faithful, and the relationship between holiness and being a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. These things should never be separated. However much we may deceive ourselves, there is no such thing as a notional Christian. It is possible to hold the doctrine of the faith in the lecture room, to give an intellectual assent to these things, but that does not make us Christian. I believe that's why Paul put 'saint' before 'faithful.' A commentator put it this way, "No one is a believer who is not holy, and no one is holy who is not a believer." These two things must never be separated, and you must never put a gap between justification and sanctification. If you are a Christian you are in Christ, and in Christ what happens is that "He is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." You cannot, you must not try to divide Christ. It is a false doctrine which says that you can be justified without being sanctified. It is impossible; you are a 'saint' before you are 'faithful.' You have been separated by God for God. That is why you believe. These things are linked together and cannot be divided. Holiness is a characteristic of every Christian, and if we are not holy, our profession of Christ is valueless. You cannot be a believer without being holy, and you cannot be holy in this New Testament sense without being a believer. "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder."

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Book Review: Concentric Circles of Concern

In his book "Concentric Circles of Concern" Oscar Thompson, Jr. gives the reader a fresh new idea in reaching people with the gospel in the 21^st Century. The author speaks from a wealth of experience as he was a pastor for twenty years before joining the faculty of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the area of evangelism. He served as president of the Oscar Thompson Evangelistic Association; as a pastoral consultant of Cancer Counseling and Research Foundation; and pastoral consultant and board member of the Trinity Valley Hospice Association, Inc. The book was written post humorously. In reading the book it is obvious to the reader that the author lived what he taught and has made a tremendous impact in the lives of those that followed these teachings on the "seven stages for making disciples.

The book is published as a book on evangelism. However, the book's title gives a hint that it is much more than just another method or outline on how to share ones faith. In the first four chapters, the author lays the ground work that prepares the reader for what lies ahead. First there is the importance that God places on relationships and that people are built to be in a relationship with God and one another. The author states that "the most important word in the English language, apart from proper nouns, is relationship." His premise is that the gospel moves through a person's relationship and that there is, in fact a hierarchy or order of importance that one must be aware of when sharing ones faith. In other words, one can't expect to share the gospel with a friend if he is not willing to share that same "good news" with his family member. The Scripture is clear that we must not only be reconciled with God but with those who are closest to us too. The author then summarizes his strategy for reaching the world through these different "relationships" that a person has. He ends his introduction of the book with familiar barriers of why a person might not share the gospel. The key aspect to the barriers is a word that is repeated often in the 200 pages of this book – relationship. In this case, the barriers stem from broken relationships.

The book is subtitled "seven stages for making discipleship" and that is what the author explains in detail throughout the rest of the thirteen chapters of the book and how that making disciples is done in and through the different relationships a person has. The big idea, the author states, in the Great Commission is to "make disciples." To do that completely and effectively is to follow the authors stages and how that then is followed by specifically who one is to reach and in what order. These seven stages and concentric circles are as follows: (1) Get Right, (2) Survey, (3) Pray, (4) Build Bridges, (5) Show Love, (6) Make Disciples, and (7) Begin Again.

Stage one is "getting right with God, self, and others. The author states, "once you have a right vertical relationship with your heavenly Father and a balanced view of self, God moves you to correct relationships with others. The Scripture is clear in many places that a person can't be right with God and have broken relationships with other people. This is especially true with those that are closest to a person, like a spouse or other close family member. This leads and fits into the authors "concentric circles of concern" and that you must make those relationships right before one goes and shares the gospel with someone further away from his "concentric circle."

Stage two is to survey ones different relationships. Most do not even know who is really within their sphere of influence for Jesus Christ. The author recommends writing down who a person's family members, relatives, friends, and so on. As one "surveys" all the different people that God brings into a person's life one finds that many of those people are lost and need to hear a clear presentation of the gospel. This too is evident and shown in several instances in Scripture. It wasn't by happenstance that Joseph was there in Egypt and all the different people Joseph touched with the gospel.

Stage three is one that is so often neglected in most church evangelism programs – prayer. The author exhorts the reader to "work with God." He goes on to state that these prayers are to be specific, and gives a great pattern of things that one could pray for. Another them that is repeated throughout the book is that love is demonstrated by meeting a need. Just as the need for salvation is met in the love that was demonstrated by Jesus Christ by dying on the cross (Romans 5:8). A key element in that pattern of prayer is asking God to reveal a need that can be met. Most do not want to pray specifically like this because God will reveal a need and then the real battle begins in whether a person will then follow through with the Lords leading. Personally, I have been praying for my neighbor and God revealed that I should fix her fence, and I have not as yet shown her the love of Christ by meeting that need.

Stage four is building bridges. The author explains that many times ones relationship with people in ones concentric circles are so shallow or distant that there is little way of reaching out to them in love. At other times, one will become aware of a person who needs the Lord and will intentionally begin building a relationship bridge to that person so that God's love can flow from the person witness to the person that needs Christ. He goes on to give several examples that are practical and doable in a any number of different situations.

Stage five is to show love. Not just a superficial love, but God's love by meeting a specific need in someone's life. This, along with prayer is another idea that is often absent from evangelism programs. Many would rather punch their time clock on a Thursday night visitation program to ease ones guilty conscience about being a good witness. However, the author states that this is one of the best ways to be used by God in reaching the world is by showing God's love. It is God that will engineer the circumstances in the lives of those for whom a person is to pray for and then God will also create opportunities for these people to experience his love through meeting a need in a life. As God loves people though you by meeting a need, this has a profound impact on how that person begins to be drawn to the Lord.

Stage six is to make disciples and help a person to grow and continue the stages from the beginning all over again. The author is clear that it is God the Holy Spirit that draws, convicts, and does the work of salvation. However, after people turn to Christ, they need to grow as disciples of Christ. This is the job of the one who witnessed to him or her to then help develop and establish a personal relationship with Jesus through prayer and the reading and study of the Word of God. This is not an easy process and will take time, energy and a continued love for that person as they become fully devoted and followers of Jesus Christ.

Stage seven is the last stage and is simply to begin the process all over again and to help other Christians to make disciples too. It is often thought that witnessing is over once a person accepts Christ. However, that is just the beginning. Just like when a new baby is born into the world, that baby then needs to be fed, protected, nurtured, and cared for. The process of discipleship continues until they themselves are taking someone else through the concentric circles of concern and making disciples.

The author does a great job in looking holistically and the commandment of God "to make disciples." The book is an easy read in that it is organized in a very logical way and can be used in a small group setting or to teach from it as an evangelism curriculum. Each chapter ends with a section on how to personalize the chapter for oneself and also a section that can be used for small group settings and discussion. Although this is an easy read and one could read the 200 pages in one sitting, if you were to put the teachings into actual practice this would take a considerable longer time to complete.

The author makes the book interesting by providing numerous personal illustrations throughout each chapter. This will encourage the reader not only to continue reading the book but also motivate you to put these concepts into practice. Many of the personal examples will bring great conviction and even tears to one's eyes.

This is not just a book on how to do evangelism, but how to make disciples. It is not just what you do but why you are doing it. Many will find themselves in these chapters being guilty of trying to win the world to Christ and forsaking our own families and those closest to us. Therefore, those that God has put in our concentric circles are there for a reason, a God reason. Thus, we are to love them and to meet their need and thereby winning the opportunity to share the greatest news in the world. The news that Jesus Christ died on a cross and rose again so that we might have a "relationship" with God the Father.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thompson, Oscar W. Jr.; Ritzman Thompson, Carolyn; Kind Claud V. Concentric Circles of Concern: Seven stages for making disciples. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holdman, 1999.

Monday, July 6, 2009

The Theology of Ephesians

Series Title: Part 1 (1-3): Our Wealth

Lesson Title: Theology of Ephesians

Jesus told a parable about a tenant farmer whose plow turned up buried treasure in a field (Matt 13:44). The man immediately sold his possessions in order to buy the field. By owning the field, he owned the buried treasure. Once in possession of the field, the man could spend his days discovering how rich he had become. We today, who are believers, are in possession of a great treasure, the indwelling Christ. We came into possession of this treasure the day we were saved. We will spend the rest of our days discovering how rich we are in Christ. This Epistle to the Ephesians will help us inventory our spiritual wealth.

In verse on you can see Paul's focus was on God (Theology Propler). Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God (v.2) grace be unto you and peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (v.3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's where we also all need to begin. We first need to focus on God then as we do that only then can we start to bring it down to any present need or situation. Within the doctrine of God we see His sovereignty.

The Sovereignty of God can be defined as his absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure. It also can be defined as God's rule and authority over all things or the supremacy of God (see 1 Chron 29:11; Dan. 4:25, 35; Rom. 9:15–23; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 4:11). Our natural response to this is to stiffen up and want to reject this doctrine. We don't like to be under authority of no one. This is nothing new and we see that Satan was cast out of heaven for it and he didn't have a very difficult talking Adam and Eve to rebel against God's right to rule in their lives according to His good pleasure.

Now, having said all that, Paul proceeds to deal with the mystery of God. The word mystery is used six times in this Epistle and more frequently than any of his other Epistles (1:9; 3:3, 3:4, 3:9; 5:32; 6:19). So, I believe that this too is one of the major themes.

This mystery of God as it relates with respect to us, and the mystery of His will. (Eph 1:9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.

If you ever feel tempted to say that God is not fair and you're not going to go along with what He wills for your life. I advise you to put your hand, as Job did, on your mouth and to try and realize to whom you are speaking. (Job 40:4) Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.

We'll look at it in more detail when we get to the particular passages, but Paul also talks about the mystery of the church and also of the Gospel.

One of the next themes is the grace of God. This word is used 12 times (1:2, 6, 7; 2:5, 7, 8; 3:2, 7, 8; 4:7, 29; 6:24). Paul just can't seem to stop repeating it. This too is the theme above all else that is developed in this letter. God's amazing grace to sinful man in providing for man's salvation and redemption. In this Epistle we are given a glimpse into the riches and the abundance of God's grace towards us. Most people are interested in wealth and riches; we like to go and see it and will even pay a fee to see all kinds of wealth and riches. That's exactly what Paul does in this Epistle as he leads us in, and gives us a view and a glimpse of the riches of the grace of God. It all starts with God, God the Father who is over all.

The Doctrine of God is seen here in His sovereignty, mystery, and the grace of God. There is much more we could say but we'll go on to look at the next great doctrine.

Having said all that, we move on to what invariably comes second here and in the whole of the Bible – the Lord Jesus Christ. (v.2) Grace be to you, and peace, from god our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even in a casual reading of this Epistle, you can't help but notice how often the Name occurs, the Name that was so dear and blessed to Paul. He says: The Apsotle of Jesus Christ, / Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ. And we could continue on and on. We see the word "Christ" 46 times in 43 verses, "Christ Jesus" you will see 7 times, "Jesus Christ" 12 times, and "Jesus" 21 times.

In verse 1 Paul tells us immediately that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ. It sounds almost absurd to have to say it, and yet it is so essential to emphasize that there is no gospel and no salvation apart from Jesus Christ. It is necessary because there are people who talk about Christianity without Christ. They talk about forgiveness but the Name of Christ is not mentioned, they preach about the love of God but in their view the Lord Jesus Christ is not essential. It is not so with the Apostle Paul; and must not be so with Mt. Zion Baptist church; there is no gospel, there is no salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. Our purpose here is to "Ignite a Passion for Christ!"

The gospel is especially about Him. All God's gracious purposes are carried out by Christ, in Christ, through Christ, from the beginning to the very end. Everything that God in His sovereign will, and by His infinite grace, and according to the riches of His mercy and the mystery of His will – everything that God has purposed and carried out for our salvation He has done in Christ.

There is no Christian message apart from Him. We are called and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, we are reconciled to God by the blood of Christ. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.

We are all interested in forgiveness, but how are we forgiven? Is it because I have repented or lived a good life that God looks at me and forgives me? I say with all respect and reverence that even the Almighty God could not forgive my sin simply on those terms. There is only one way whereby God forgives us; it is because He sent His only begotten Son from heaven to earth, and to the agony and the shame and the death on the Cross: In whom we have redemption through his blood. There is no Christianity without the blood of Christ. Not only is it the Person of Christ but in particular, His death, His shed blood, His atoning substitutionary sacrifice! It is in that way, and that way alone, that we are redeemed. In this Epistle Christ is shown to be absolutely essential.

Purpose of God is brought about in Christ. So we have looked at God – His sovereignty, mystery and grace. Then after God we see Jesus. And now we can see God's purpose in Christ and this is the practical side of this book. We find that in verse ten of chapter one. That in the dispensation (plan) of the fullness of times he [God] might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in him [Christ]. There is God's purpose and Paul goes on to tell us that this purpose has always been necessary. Necessary because of sin. In chapter two we will find that he tells us about the problems that plague our mind and the heart of man, and how they are due to the fact that (v.2) the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: is controlling fallen mankind.

He tells us that God's plan of redemption is necessary because of the Fall of man (another doctrine found in this letter), and how that was proceeded by the fall of that bright angelic spirit called the Devil, who has become the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), the prince of the power of the air (2:2). This terrible power is the cause of the hostility and the dilemma and the havoc that has been characteristic of the life of the human race. There is nothing new about this, it is all the result of sin and the devil's hatred for God. It's the loss of man's true relationship to God. Mankind sets himself up as a god and thereby causes all the disruptions and confusion in the world. However, we are shown how at the very beginning, even back in Paradise, God announced His plan and began to put it into action.

The Old Testament is an account of how God began to work it out, everything pointed to the cross and the one theme that runs throughout God's Word – Redemption. First, He called a man named Abraham and turned him into a nation. There we have the beginning of something new. He then separated unto Himself a people called Jews. In their history we see the beginning of His purpose of redemption. Out of the helplessness and depravity of mankind God formed a people for Himself. But then there was a great rivalry between the Jews and Gentiles, and thus yet another major theme of this Epistle is to show how God has dealt with that matter. The great idea here is that God has revealed Himself not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles; (v.14) the middle wall of partition has gone; God hath made both one (v.15). There is a new creation; something new has come into being; it is called The Church; and this work of God is to go on increasing, says Paul, until when the fullness of the time shall have arrived God will have carried out His entire plan, and all that is opposed to Him shall be destroyed.

Everything shall be united together and made one in Christ. That is again one of the major themes of this Epistle. At first Jews only, then Jews and Gentiles, then all things. And all is to be done in and through Christ.

This all leads us to yet another theme, which is the Church. God's purpose is seen most clearly through the Church. This great purpose of bringing together all nations in Christ. In Her, the Church, are formed different people, different nationalities, coming from different parts of the world, with different experiences, appearances, and yet all are one in Christ.

This is all what God is doing, until there shall finally be (2 Pet 3:13) a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness and Jesus shall reign for ever more.

Nothing is more encouraging and wonderful than to see the Church in that light, and to see, therefore, the importance and the privilege and the responsibility of being a member of that Church. It is because of this that we must live the Christian life; and so in chapter 4 and to the end of the letter, Paul emphasizes our walk which is expected of Christians because they are what they are, and because that in the plan of God, they must manifest His grace in their daily life and living.

Let me summarize all what I have talked about in a simple, practical manner. Why am I calling your attention to all this? It is because I am overwhelmingly convinced that our greatest need is to know these truths. We all need to look again at this glorious revelation, and to be delivered from one of our greatest problems in the church – the pre-occupation with ourselves. If we could only see ourselves as we are described in this epistle; if we but realized, as Paul expresses it in his prayer (17-19), that we are to know what is the hope of our calling, and what is the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according t the working of his mighty power, what a difference it would make!

Are you or have you been an unhappy Christian feeling that the fight is too much for you? And are you on the point of giving up and giving in? What you need is to know the power that is working mightily for you, the same power that brought Christ from the dead. If we but know that we are meant to be filled with all fullness of God we should no longer be weak and ailing and complaining, we should no longer present such a sorry picture of the Christian life to those who live around us. What we need, primarily, is to realize what we are, and who we are, what God has done in Christ and the way He has blessed us. We fail to realize our privileges.

Are greatest need is still the need of understanding. Our prayer for ourselves should be the prayer of Paul – (v.18). That is what we need. In this Epistle the exceeding riches of God's grace are displayed before us. I ask you to look at them with me, and let us take hold of them and enjoy them. This being especially true in times like these, how vital it is that we should have some new and fresh understanding of God's great plan and purpose for the world as the rest of the world wonders what the future will bring, what a privilege it is to be able to stand and look at this revelation, and see God's plan and purpose behind it all and beyond it all. All this will not be brought about by presidents or the UN but through people like ourselves. God's people, who know who they are in Christ and although the world may ignore it, and even laughs and mocks at it. However, we know for certain with the Paul that (v.21) all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, have been set beneath Christ's feet. Remember, the Lord Jesus was rejected by this world when He came into it; they dismissed Him as this fellow, this carpenter; but he was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and the One to whom (Phil 2:10) every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth.

Thanks be to God for the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, and for the riches of his grace!

Friday, July 3, 2009

Interpreting the Text of Scripture

Textual Criticism

How do you interpret Scripture? Many people in the church today don't understand that there are a number of methods for doing so. Which critical method gives us the most promise for attaining a clear interpretation of Scripture?

Generally speaking, the questions asked in biblical theology have to do with the preservation and transmission of the biblical text, including in what manuscripts the text has been preserved, their date, setting, and relationship to each other, and what the most reliable form of the text is; the origin and composition of the text, including when and where it originated, how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced, what influences were at work in its production, and what sources were used in its composition; and the message of the text as expressed in its language, including the meaning of the words as well as the way in which they are arranged in meaningful forms of expression. This is what brought about different types or styles of criticisms.

Historical Criticism: When the text is obscure, scholars attempt to discover "what actually happened" to help clarify the narrative. This is done by noting discrepancies in parallel accounts, examining secular history material, noting whether some events actually happened, recognizing supernatural occurrences, "invented" stories by the church, and other methods. In doing this it also will draw on the data of archaeology and other secular historical sources. Within this criticism it will also use the following:

Source Criticism: Source criticism attempts to identify the sources used in writing the synoptic gospels and identify their relationship to the gospels. For example, where there are duplicate accounts of a story, an attempt is made to explain a literary connection or an underlying source. Advocates of source criticism suggest the writers used a common source to which they adhered but felt the freedom to add detail and "were not worried about precision in historical details." The problem with source criticism is twofold: it tends to ignore the divine element in inspiration and acknowledge error; it is built on conjecture without any demonstrable proof of underlying sources.

Form Criticism: This endeavors to get behind the written sources of the Bible to the period of oral tradition, and to isolate the oral forms that went into the written sources. To that extent, as this attempts to trace history of the tradition, it is also known as traditional criticism.

Redaction Criticism: This is a study of the activity of the biblical authors in shaping, modifying, or even creating material for the final product which they wrote.

A basic problem in historical criticism is that it approaches the Bible like any other book and acknowledges the possibility of error; in this sense it is incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inspiration. In addition, it doesn't take the whole text into consideration and context and will often focus on small details in the text (atomism).

Literary Criticism: If historical criticism is concerned with the historical circumstances in which a text was written, literary criticism is concerned with the text as a finished piece of writing. The questions here are not so much how the text came to be written or what we can know from outside the text to account for what is in it, but what we can learn from what is said in the text itself. In this sense, the text constitutes a 'world' in its own right and as such serves as an object of investigation in all its aspects.

The New Literary Criticism: This has a lot of similarities with "literary criticism" but as time went on scholars became less and less interested in what the Scriptures actually said and became more interested in what might lay behind the text, or what "really" happened. In this method there is more of a focus on the reader and what is taking place as opposed to the text and what actually happened in historical context.

The most promising method for a right rendering of the text is "historical" criticism without a doubt. Historical criticism seeks to interpret the Scriptures by studying the text in its original historical-grammatical context in order to discover what the author's original intent was so that timeless principles can then be discovered and applied to a contemporary setting. We must first ask the question "what did it mean then?" This interpretation must be historical, grammatical, contextual, and literary and then we must compare that with other Scripture. After which, we then compare our traditions, reason, experience, and even emotions. Then we can formulate the timeless principle that we can apply in the 21^st century. I have great concern and reservation about the other views as it conflicts greatly with the doctrine of inspiration. Not to mention in the "New Literary Criticism" it seems to me that you can make the Bible say anything you want it too. We must remember that all heresy came from people interpreting the Bible the way they wanted it to say. How often I have heard in someone read a verse and then ask "what does that verse mean to you?" It doesn't matter what it means to you! What did it mean then must be asked first! What mattered was what was happening at the specified time. All right, I'm done preaching.

Bibliography

Carson & Moo, (2005) An Introduction to the NT. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Moody Handbook of Theology

The Canon of Scripture

The Canon

The word canon refers to the 39 Old Testament (OT) and the 27 New Testament (NT) books which came to be accepted as the genuinely inspired and authoritative written Word of God. Originally, in Greek, the word canon meant a straight rod, then it was applied to that which tested straightness (as a ruler), and finally to that which was accepted as meeting a particular standard (the rule). So, the canonical Scriptures are those than meet the tests of what Scripture is.

The formation by which this determination was made is called canonization. It should be seen as a "process" rather than as an act or a vote by some ecclesiastical council (e.g. Council at Carthage in A.D. 397). It was also a slow process, a gradual growing consensus of opinion about the books of the NT. There were questions and doubts about some of the books, but these were eventually settled satisfactorily. They determined that they needed an authoritative list as many other documents began to circulate claiming to be canon. Most of the 1^st century believed that Christ would be coming back real soon and when He didn't they began to put together what we now have as the Bible.

There are several sources of evidence concerning the development of the NT canon. First, as the letters were passed and copied they continued to be used by the canonical writings. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that we can just about recreate the NT just by taking the Scripture that is quoted or referenced in early church writings. Not only that, but the churches of Thessalonica, Philippe, Corinth, Rome, Colossae, and many others which received original apostolic letters could testify of that fact. This continued testimony and their usage of these letters was no doubt a powerful witness to the genuineness and authority of those books. In time this initial testimony would spread abroad together with the usage of that particular NT book. Eventually, the opinion of the church would be unanimous and universal. In fact, this issue of what books would be canonical came up in many councils and by the third Council in Carthage (A.D. 397) it had received the full complement of the NT and was generally agreed upon. Another source of evidence is the contents of ancient manuscripts in which contains the entire NT and part of the OT (e.g. Codes Sinaiticus). Lastly, there is apostolic authorship. Jesus spoke from God and was attested by John the Baptist (Jn 5:32-35), His miracles (Jn 5:36; Heb 2:4), God the Father (Jn 5:39). His authority to speak from God was passed along to the apostles (Jn 15:26-27; 16:13; 20:21), and their ministry was authenticated by divine works as well (Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8). So, when the apostle spoke or wrote in the name of the Lord, his message was considered authoritative and accepted as the Word of God.

For me, apostolic authorship is the most important as they were actually with Christ or, like Luke and James were "near" to the apostles themselves. I think the least in importance is the councils recognizing the canon. I think it's the least important because this would be the last argument that I would use in explaining it to someone. It is truly evident that God has preserved His Word, just by the sheer number of manuscript support. This support is much greater than any other ancient near eastern documents, even that of Plato.

Lastly, there are many people that believe that the canon is still open. By implication, the principle of apostolic authorship leads to the conclusion that once the apostles died, no more could be added to the collection of their writings. So, it is reasonable to say that the canon was complete by the end of the 1^st century, when all the apostles had died, through it took significantly longer for all of the books to be recognized. I think the best Scripture Heb 1:1-2, where Christ was the final authority. Even Paul did not claim to have any new revelation but merely explained what God had already revealed in Christ.

Bibliography

White, James R. (2004) Scripture Alone, Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse

Wegner, Paul D. (1999) The Journey from Texts to Translations, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker

Lea, T. D., & Black, D. A. (2003). The New Testament : Its background and message (2nd ed.) (192). Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Book Review: God in the Wasteland

David F. Wells is a professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and in his book God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams; he depicts how modernity has invaded and corrupted the church and offers a biblical antidote so that the characteristics of biblical faith are preserved. This is Wells sequel on the subject to his first book titled No Place for Truth. In that book, he set out and described and diagnosed the cultural factors that have diminished the place and importance of theology in the church but offered no resolutions in solving the dilemma. Forthwith, Wells advances these arguments about how the evangelical crisis of modernism or more commonly known as "worldliness" has pushed out God and the truth of His Word. In this relationship between Christ and the culture, what is highly prescribed is an awakening and the necessity of rediscovering our theological roots.

According to Wells, the rudimentary predicament in Evangelicalism is the identical one that has taken out the effectiveness of mainline Protestantism today. Wells calls it "modernity" where liberal Protestantism conciliated to the modern world. This is not because the modern world has become more theological but because Protestantism has become modern. It has become an informal religious establishment that derives its power not from its theology but from the culture. Thus, the central issue is the relationship between Christ and culture and that modernity is not just an issue, but according to Wells it is the significant issue (p. 26). In his analysis of modernity, he contends that it is necessary that we understand that the love of God and the love the world are in competition. However, most evangelicals are oblivious to it because over the past few decades there has been an erosion of biblical separation and a distinct movement to conformity and a gradual descent into the "me" generation. Distracted by the cajoleries of modern culture, we have lost our focus on transcendent biblical truth. Evangelicals have been beguiled by the efficiency of our culture's techniques, and strategies (p. 58). This modernity movement has gone far away from looking for men who can preach and teach to those who can manage and have the knowhow of marketing and selling the goods of the gospel.

Wells stated that in light of the church being run as an organization in contrast to the body of Christ as an organism, the focus of the church has shifted from God to that of an organization. Although there is still a belief in God, it is only now that he has become to be less significant or as Wells puts it, God becomes weightless. Weightlessness is a condition, a cognitive and psychological disposition that can sweep through all doctrinal defenses because it is not itself perceived as a doctrine (p. 90). The answer to rediscover the importance of the biblical doctrine of God, according to Wells, is to decisively move away from modernity and prevailing anthropology and to also move away from our humanistic theology. At this point, Wells turns from the culture and focuses on primarily the theological. The two themes that Wells develops are the transcendent holiness of God and secondly the immanence and the church's need to rediscover the one and to run from its abuse to the other. Only then will God begin to have weight again.

In the closing chapters, Wells looks at the coming generation of church leadership by surveying seminaries. In that he found that the respondents were first of all at least aware of the changing shape and that theology was important to them. Secondly, that theology is indeed important and should be central in the life of the church. Thirdly, that the students were dissatisfied with the current status of the church, and that it has lost its vision (p. 213). Finally, in his last chapter he talks about some of the changes that the church needs to effect in order to regain its spiritual authenticity.

God in the Wasteland is a companion volume, as already stated, to his earlier No Place for Truth, a book described by Time magazine as a "stinging indictment of evangelicalism's theological corruption." Wells is not alone and has been joined by evangelical leaders as Charles Colson, Mark Noll, and Richard Mouw and as Carl Zylstra states that they "have begun to outdo even mainline critics in questioning whether modern evangelicalism has sold its principles in order to achieve popular success." The central issue for Wells is the proper relationship between Christ and culture. He opposes any fusion between the Christian faith and modern culture, whether that of Protestant liberalism or the more recent cultural accommodation of evangelicalism. Evangelicals, he contends, have bought cultural acceptableness by giving a blind eye to theology, and substituting a message of happiness versus that of holiness. He says he has written this book because "the vision of the evangelical church is now clouded, its internal life greatly weakened, its future very uncertain, and I want something better for it…the evangelical church to be the church" (p. 214).

In this book Wells presents his argument for a counterculture Christianity from a classical Reformed evangelical theology. His analysis is fastened on some familiar and yet dismal examples of the mega-church phenomena, televangelists, Barna and his connection and influence with the church-growth movement, and the social gospel. The result is theology loses its necessary place and preeminence in our Seminaries to that of management and marketing techniques. The degree in which your church is considered a success is the size and structures you have and how many needs can be met by the congregation, or more accurately stated—consumer. Pastors and church leaders can still preach about all the great doctrines but seldom does it get out from within the church walls. The TV preaches about a consumer gospel and how God can be used as the means to good health, riches, and, a trouble free life. Wells believes that Christians are to stand against worldly culture and stay true to its nature. Only, "this kind of distance, this kind of dissociation from modernity, this kind of opposition to modernity as an essentially ungodly worldview" (p. 119), will preserve Christian identity.

This "otherworldliness" has as its nemesis the second generation western evangelicals who have been captivated by the social scientific. Rather than being sensitive to subjective belief, Christians should understand that the issue is a matter of truth rather than psychology. For Wells one either begins with the human perspective or with God. However, Robert Johnston states the following:

Wells inability to hold on more comprehensively to the dialectic of Christ and culture causes him to lose sight of aspects of classical theology that would make his theology more adequate biblically. The example is given where Wells believes the cross takes precedence over resurrection, and in the process the material is slighted for the spiritual. Transcendence is highlighted over immanence, with the Spirits work in the wider world noted but effectively ignored for the Spirit's work in applying what Christ has accomplished. God's holiness is asserted as fundamental in defining God's character, with divine love of being reduced merely to an expression of holiness. (What does Wells do with the theology of 1 John?) In his desire to argue "objective" truth, he undervalues the "subjective." … But his propensity for overstatement and his revulsion from contemporary culture causes him to underestimate or ignore other biblical doctrines which are more culturally "relevant" at present.

The last two chapters Wells focuses on the seminarian himself through a comprehensive survey take in 1993 in which seven Evangelical seminaries took part in. His findings were relatively hopeful as those taking the survey do have a high regard of Scripture and believe that theology should be a cornerstone in the life of the church. He also stated that most were indeed not satisfied with the current status of the church (p. 213). Although this book was written in the mid-nineties it holds true today. As I presently serve as a pastor in a church, I see how modernity has crept virtually unnoticed into my own thinking and church. It is an easy thing to do to begin to give our congregations what they believe they want rather than what they need—theology. Most within the church are more concerned with what they believe and yet have no idea why they believe or where it fits theologically if at all. They want a gospel that will answer the question to their problems quickly and painlessly. God is just another means to the end that can be pulled off and put back on the shelf as needed.

God in the Wasteland is a book that has no doubt shaken a few chains of evangelicals and those whom are not as, no doubt, we all to some degree have come under the shadow of modernity. The competition between this world and God is evident and most have unfortunately put God aside and not allowed God to have the preeminence, he not only deserves but commands. The challenge for the church and those that lead in it is to bring back theology and allow it to have its prominent place in the teaching and preaching. That the decisions and actions we take would be based on a biblical worldview rather than the bottom line.

Bibliography

Johnston, Robert K. "God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63 (Winter 1995): 872-875.

Zylstra, Carl E. "God in the Wasteland." Homiletic 2, no. 20 (Winter 1995): 52.

Wells, David F. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Wells, David F. No Place for Truth; or, Whatever Happened to Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.

Inspiration & Inerrancy of Scripture

Introduction

An assumption in historic Protestant Evangelicalism has been that the Bible is the Word of God. Within that assumption there are many topics that could be included, some of which are the authority of Scripture, the transmission and canonization of Scripture, and the infallibility of Scripture. Additionally, and what is the context of this paper, is the assumption of the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant. The goal is to answer some questions that arise from this subject. First, what is inspiration and how did it occur? Secondly, how do we know the Bible is inspired? Thirdly, what effect does inspiration have on interpreting the Scriptures? Lastly, does the Bible err? Although we are going to look at inspiration and inerrancy individually it will be difficult not to broach on each of them as they are closely interrelated to one another. The importance of these doctrines cannot be overemphasized as even within Evangelicalism there is a rise of those who are casting doubt and diluting these fundamental doctrines. The correct view and understanding of these doctrines is also paramount on one's proper interpretation of the Scriptures. James White makes the argument that "how one views the Scripture will determine the rest of one's theology."

Inspiration

As stated, the doctrine of inspiration in all actualities forms the bedrock on how a person interprets the Scriptures. In looking at inspiration, there are three questions that need to be answered. What does it mean that the Bible is inspired? How did inspiration occur? Moreover, how does one's viewing of inspiration affect their hermeneutics or the way one interprets the Bible? The outcome is to come to the conclusion that the best view is the "Verbal, Plenary" view and within that context a correct approach will be taken in the interpretation of Scripture.

What is inspiration?

The dictionary has defined inspiration in a very broad sense as: 1. Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity. 2. An agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention. 3. Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired. 4. The quality of inspiring or exalting: a painting full of inspiration. 5. Divine guidance or influence exerted directly on the mind and soul of humankind. 6. The act of drawing in, especially the inhalation of air into the lungs. Within this definition the closest we come to a theological definition would be number five but for our purposes it is necessary to have a narrower definition. In addition, inspiration is confused and sometimes used interchangeably with other words. Therefore, in defining divine inspiration in the distinctive sense in which it is employed in the Holy Scriptures, the difference in meaning of this expression from revelation and illumination must be carefully comprehended. First, there is revelation, which is defined as the act whereby God reveals truth to mankind through both special revelation (Scripture, prophets, etc.) and natural revelation (nature, conscience, etc). Secondly, inspiration may be defined as the Holy Spirit's superintending over the writers so that while writing according to their own styles and personalities, the result was God's Word written—authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs. Lastly, illumination is a ministry of the Holy Spirit that enables all who are in right relation with God to understand the objective written revelation. Accordingly, revelation involves origin, inspiration, reception and recording, and illumination, understanding or comprehending the written objective revelation. It can also be stated that, revelation comprehends God's giving truth. Inspiration embraces man under divine control accurately receiving the truth thus given. Illumination deals with man's understanding the God-given, inspired revelation (1 Cor. 2:14). Revelation as it concerns Scripture had a specific time period involving the inspiration of certain sovereignly chosen individuals as the recipients of the revelation. Thus, revelation and inspiration did work together in formulating God's Word. However, the difference being when David in Psalm 19 looked up into the heavens and talked about God's creation it was God's revelation divinely inspired; as opposed to someone today looking up and declaring God's creation. It is plain that both revelation and inspiration as defined have ceased. In contrast, illumination is continuously operative in an indirect way whereby God through the work of the Holy Spirit enlightens people to understand his revelation (Scripture) and its relevance to their lives. Thus, inspiration is the "voice of God" and is objective and infallible whereas illumination has and inherent subjectivity and although may be theologically correct is still fallible and greatly dependent on proper hermeneutics.

How did inspiration occur?

Inspiration is seen in two key passages in the New Testament (NT). The first is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which proclaims that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The word inspiration comes from the word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which broken down is theos (God) pneustos (breathed) or literally "God breathed." Many evangelicals believe this was a general statement from Paul about Scripture itself that had or would be written, as the New Testament canon was not yet complete. Thus, Paul's statement, in context is that all that is and would be determined Scripture is in fact God breathed. Knight writes that what "Paul appears to be saying, therefore, is that all scripture has as its source God's breath and that this is its essential characteristic. This is another way of saying that scripture is God's word (cf. Jesus' use of "scripture" and "word of God" in apposition to each another in Jn. 10:35). In addition we have 2 Peter 1:20-21, which states, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The first part of that verse where it states, "is a matter of one's own interpretation," is often used by the Roman Catholics to say that the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is fallacious. That Scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals but must be done through a magisterial authority. According to the Roman Catholic tradition, Scripture, though uniquely inspired and even infallible, is dependent on the church and its tradition because the same Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets and apostles as they wrote also inspired the church. As a result, they wrongly interpret the revelation to the readers so that they might read the Scriptures correctly. However, taken in context, the second part of the verse is clearly talking about the inspiration of Scripture. The "for" in the verse would connect the word "prophecy" in the second part of the verse with the first part. Hence, the "human will" would then indicate the authors of the original autographs so that he might write the Scriptures correctly. The last part of the verse tells how this was done and states as "men were moved by the Holy Spirit." The Greek word for "moved" is: φέρω (pherô), which literal means "to carry," "to bear," "to guide," or "to drive along." It also has the idea of a ship being carried by the wind (Acts 27:17). Thus, the key issue that needs to be taken from this verse is that inspiration has its first cause in God, not man. Nevertheless, God used man in the inspiration process, guiding him along utilizing his personality, attitude, intentions, and situations in life, writing style, and even motivation to correctly convey God's own words.

How does one's view effect their interpretation of the Bible?

There are several views of inspiration. Is all of Scripture the actual writings of God or did God just enable and gift man to write it. Or could God have helped man in writing the Bible. These are some of the views that many denominations hold to, including many evangelical denominations. Erickson argues, "That our utilization of the Bible will be influenced by what we think of about its nature." One theory is the Natural view. This view teaches that there is nothing supernatural about biblical inspiration; the writers of Scripture were simply men of unusual ability who wrote the books of the Bible in the same way that an individual would write any other book. The writers were men of unusual religious insight, writing on religious subjects in the same way men like Shakespeare or Schiller wrote literature. Alan Richardson suggests there have been several Christian books from the second to the twentieth century that are inspired in precisely the same way as the Bible. Simply stated and for later comparison it could be look at as being 100% written by man. Secondly, there is the Illumination theory that believes the Holy Spirit moved within certain individuals to write above their natural capacity. "It suggests that some Christians may have spiritual insight that although similar to other Christians is greater in degree. In this view any devout Christian, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can be the author of inspired Scripture." This could be looked at as 10% God and 90% man. Thirdly, there is the Partial theory of inspiration. This is the belief that some of Scripture is inspired, namely, that which is profitable for doctrine, matters of "faith and practice," but not all inspired. Matters of history and science would not be included as such because they are irrelevant to God's purpose. Despite the presence of errors in Scripture, partial theorists teach that an imperfect medium is a sufficient guide to salvation. A. H. Strong was and C.S. Lewis was a proponent of this view. This can be looked at as being 50% man, and 50% God. Next, there is the Degree theory. This is the view that all Scripture is inspired, but some passages are more inspired than others. For example, the "days of creation" was written or allowed by God to be written in accommodating language to be understood by man, although not necessarily true, but nonetheless was inspired. One could look at this view as 90% God and 10% man. The forth theory is Mechanical Dictation. God simple used the hand of man to passively write his words—a 100% God. Passages where the Spirit is depicted as telling the author precisely what to write are regarded as applying to the entire Bible. Examples of this would be how the Mormons view their testament and that of the Koran. Thus, nothing passed through the mind of man that could corrupt what was being written. With these views describe, one could see that a total spectrum has been covered—from 100% man to 100% God. Within these it also appears that the entire gambit has seemingly been covered and yet not altogether satisfactorily. This then, left alone, would leave a person in somewhat of a paradoxical situation. However, the last one to discuss and then compare is the Verbal Plenary view. This states that all Scripture is inspired by God who utilized the human element within man to accomplish this without error. This can be looked at as 100% God and 100% man.

This is pivotal, and although not covered in detail in this paper, it determines whether or not a person properly interprets Scripture. What is interesting to note is that Verbal/Plenary occurred because of the tension between the two theories of Partial and Degree. Verbal, which extends to the very words of Scripture, not just teachings, came about in opposition to Degree. Plenary, on the other hand, which extends to everything in the Bible, not just the parts that speak on matters of faith and practice, opposed the Partial theory.

Now it is important that the question of where does inspiration lie is required. Again, the view taken will impact how one does hermeneutics. First, if inspiration lies only within the mind of God then God alone is the only one who can understand truth. Moreover, mankind's understanding of it is finite and thus making it inadequate. Secondly, there is the view of that inspiration lies in the mind of the authors. God actually put the thoughts is the writers mind, and then he would write it down. Although the thought was perfectly placed there by God it might not preclude error in the actual writing of it. Then there is the view that inspiration lies within the written message. In this view it is not necessary to understand at all the mind of the author and what he might have been thinking but the message is all that is necessary and what God intended. These views are the more evangelical views the last ones are more postmodern in their views. First, there is the proclaimed message. This view states that the written words are merely historically true and not necessarily inspired as it has been previously defined. In addition, God did not need to do anything supernatural but does in fact interact with the text as it is being proclaimed and at that point it becomes "inspired". This is a Neo-Orthodox view that is held by Karl Barth. Lastly, there is the received message. This is similar, but emphasizes more of the reader and as the text is being read the person then becomes "inspired."

In summation then, the revelation as has been defined is the mind of God. The inspiration all happens within both the mind of the author and the written message. So it would not be an "either/or" but a "both/and." The words-versus-thoughts issue really cannot be separated. Erickson states it as follows:

The Spirit may do is to direct the thoughts of Scripture writer. The direction effected by the Spirit, however, is quite precise. God being omniscient, it is not gratuitous to assume that his thoughts are precise, more so than ours. Consequently, with the vocabulary of the writer, one work will most aptly communicate the thought God is conveying (although that word in itself may be inadequate). By creating the thought and stimulation the understanding of the Scripture writer, the Spirit will lead him in effect to use one particular word rather than any other.

Thus, as inspiration being the act whereby God guided the writers of Scripture, giving them his words while fully utilizing the human element within man to produce Scriptures. History records, that one of the first heresies was not the denial that Christ was 100% God but that he was not 100% man (Gnosticism). Likewise, this effects the way one interprets the Scriptures. It makes a difference if someone were to approach the Bible as solely a book of man. That person would follow a certain set of rules, one in which the author would be of great importance, with no regard for the divine element. On the other hand, if one looked at it solely as a book of God, the reader would not be interested or preoccupied with the author. The reader would only want to know what God is saying to him. Therefore, to accurately understand the text it is important to first study the Scripture in context to the mind or the intent of the author and then to understand the text. If not then inspiration lies with the message received and proclaimed and the inspiration is solely dependent on the reader. This postmodern view is subjective and prevalent in the evangelical church, although somewhat out of ignorance. The hermeneutical effects are a person will think that every Scripture applies to him, randomly opening the Bible and seeing what God has to say, and not taking into account the progress of revelation to name but a few.

Inerrancy

Inerrancy of Scripture has much to do with that of inspiration and how it relates to what has been defined as the verbal, plenary view of Scripture. It would be difficult not to also discuss the view of inerrancy. Charles Ryrie has shown the necessity of the inclusion of additional verbiage. To state the orthodox view it is now necessary to include the terms "verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration!" The importance of this issue has become more evident in our postmodern world and with the onslaught of attacks from those who talk of all the contradictions, hard sayings, and inconsistencies that liberals perceive in Scripture. It is important that Christians be prepared in answering these questions but more importantly is that the proper view it will make on one's hermeneutics. In fact, understanding how to properly interpret Scripture will better enable and properly equip a person in discussing these issues. The first question that begs to be answered before continuing is whether or not if Scriptures err can Christianity still be true? The short answer is yes, because the inerrancy issue has nothing to do with the more important and historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ. An example would be if a historian erred in his writing of a historical event. Just because he erred does not change the facts of what happened. Likewise, this is true with Scripture.

Biblical Criticism: Reader-Response

What is the most recent form of biblical criticism, and how has it effected biblical study today?

The most recent form of biblical criticism is Reader-Response
Criticism. This form goes back to Germany and the Sixties to the Konstanz School of literary studies. This form of criticism since then has continued to gain a foothold into how we interpret Scripture. This form recognized the reader as superior to the text itself and has an active role that reveals and completes the meaning through their interpretation.

There are some obvious problems that arise from this form of modern literary theory on how we read and understand the Bible. One of the cultural affects of postmodernism is that language is indeterminate—it does not communicate a stable meaning and there is no such thing as absolute truth. Reader-response criticism is relative and subjective to the reader. This puts the focus not on the Word of God nor does it have any connection with illuminating the Scripture by the work of the Holy Spirit. This subjectivity is seen in the writings of Stanley Fish, one of the more radicals in this approach and makes this statement. "…the text as an entity independent of interpretation and responsible for its career drops out and is replaced by the texts that emerge as the consequence of our interpretive activities."

This type of study has lead to a liberal view of studying the Bible where experience rather than sound doctrine is the true essence. It places doctrine within the believing community rather than viewing and studying it as final and absolute truth. In doing so, the final authority for theology must be a community event, and the Holy Spirit not only speaks through the text but within that community. Although I believe that we must not only study theology but that we are to exercise what we believe this must agree to the truth of God's Word and must take precedence over the community. If we are to follow Reader response criticism this would mean that each community could discover for itself its own truth.

Vanhoozer in his book entitled Is There a Meaning in This Text is a helpful guide in understanding language and how the language of the Bible carries meaning about God, people and how scholars read and interpret the Bible today. It is also talks about the Holy Spirit's work of illumination. I do believe that just a simplistic or mechanical study of the Bible will not have the impact on us that God intends. Meditation is one of those keys (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2) and we need to come back to the question of the Holy Spirit in the study of the Bible. It's not a feeling it's a supernatural act of "illumination."

In conclusion, I like what Osborn suggested in his book on how to "do" a system of theology:

(1) Theology must always further the righteousness and holiness of the saints and reflect "historic supernatural Christian orthodoxy." (2) It must also reflect exegetical truth, biblical theology, and at the same time build bridges to life today. (3) It must reflect constant dialogue with biblical teaching and exude the impact of the Holy Spirit in spiritual understanding. (4) It must continually engage culture and the ideas that drive it, then present the gospel as the way forward to solving the prevalent issues. (5) It should maintain dialogue with Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream liberal Protestant thought, refusing the isolationist mentality that destroyed witness in the past (2000:186–89).