Are You a Spiritual Person?

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one” (1 Cor. 2:14-15).

Spirituality is something that everyone wants but what does that look like for a Christian? In that sense, the word ‘spirituality’ focuses on the ‘spiritual person’ (pneumatikos anthrōpos), the person who has placed their faith in the risen Christ, and is in the process of being renewed through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. The big question to ask oneself is “I’m I becoming more like Christ in the way I think, feel, and act?” We call that spiritual growth and development, which includes all aspects of our life in Christ. We don’t get to pick and choose, as Christ demands all of us as He has demonstrated and given (Matt. 16:24-26; Luke 14:26-27). In light of this a ‘spiritual person’ will develop ways of reading and engaging with God’s word that will promote spiritual nourishment to sustain the life of faith, enabling him or her to grow, to include any and all conditions. In fact, our greatest growth comes through trials and tribulations (James 1:1-13).

The ‘spiritual person’ will be a focused person. First, with all that this world is trying to get us focused on the primary focus must be on the person and work of Christ. This in part is what it means to be an Evangelical. The focus is on the ministry of Christ, the way in which he interacted with people through compassion and love. Focused on his suffering and death on the cross – a costly redemption in which Christ drank fully the cup of the wrath of God for our account.  Then there’s the resurrection, ascension, and the coming again, the sure hope that spurs us on to live a life that glorifies the Father. This is far different than other “spiritualties” that are out there on the American landscape.

This brings us again to the obvious conclusion that this ‘spiritual person’ will put an emphasis on reading, studying, and meditating on Scripture. This is where God has revealed himself and tells us about someone who matters more than anyone else – as well as us mattering to Christ as well. If there is no desire to learn more about this person, so you can draw closer to him then he has not initiated (grace) that relationship with you. In other words you are not saved. You only have a “form of godliness” in which these are people that we are actually to stay away from (2 Tim. 3:5).  Scripture is what helps us to understand more about God and his purpose for us in glorifying him fully and how we are to keep Jesus centered and as our vision for our faith. So then, what did you read, and study this morning? What Bible study groups are you in to learn, share and strengthen our faith? I firmly believe that small groups are the backbone of the church and our faith.

The ‘spiritual person’ will have as well an appreciation for hymns, commentaries, and other tools to help come along side the Scriptures. These are not substitutes for the Bible but they are like magnifying glasses to help us bring clarity to biblical ideas and principles.  We understand that we stand on broad shoulders from our past as the Holy Spirit worked through great men and women to bring about our rich Christian heritage.  We love the hymns that focus on the person of Christ and the majesty and character of our great God and Savior.  Evangelicalism has no place for writer of book, commentaries or songs who point us away from Scripture or Jesus Christ. The dependability and trustworthiness is to be determined by the extent to which these writers are centered on Christ and focused on the Scripture.

We must face the reality that we often take our faith for granted; we loose the awe of our great God and it becomes commonplace in our lives. We become culturally comfortable in our Christianity. This must be shaken off and a restoration needs to take place in our lives where we again and again reignite a passion for Christ. If we our to be ‘spiritual people’ and our faith is going to work, it must have both nourishment and enrichment. So in conclusion, are you a biblically spiritual person? Does your life reflect Christ? Is the word of God prominent in your daily life?  

The Infection of Commonplace Religion

Anyone who is honest will have to admit that there is an infection in the church in North America. That infection is a "Commonplace Religion." A commonplace religion is what is pleasing to flesh and blood.  A religion that has no self-denial in it, no cross bearing, no self-crucifixion and forsaking all. 

Where has the Scriptures gone?  It used to be that the Scriptures alone stated the standard of life and experience.  However, by us making our own standard, there is now a delusion and falsity for our desires, conveniences and pleasures that now form the rule of life, and that is always a fleshly and low rule.  A rule that is ever changing based on whatever we feel is right and pleasing to ourselves. 

This commonplace religion is one that is compromising - a low level of life that is as the world lives.  There is a question that continues to thunder in my heart and mind.  Is heaven a fit place for non-praying, loose living, ease loving people who scarcely have a thought that is not directed at self?

Not so!  Jesus said, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, whcih leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).  Paul also cautions us about making for ourselves a commonplace religion.  A religion that is haphazard, pleasure-seeking and all about us and our standard of measurement: "For we dare not make ourselves the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but the measure themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you" (2 Corinthians 10:12-13). 

With that said, I would humbly submit to you that there is no standard of religion that is worth any consideration which is not saturated with prayer, reading the Word, attending the church in which Christ died for - His bride, and a love for obeying our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm tired of the infection of the commonplace religion that is devoid of what the Scripture teaches as the standard. I'm tired of a religion that sees the church, his Word, prayer and total obedience and allegiance to our King as being optional and based on when convenient to our schedule and desires.  This vague, indefinite, popular view of religion has not the God of the Bible as the center of our lives; but it's a religion of self, where we have place "us" at the center and God is to be only summoned when we have exhausted all our own resources. He is our last ditch effort at getting what we want. 

The standard that we have set before us in this commonplace religion is one that is easily met as it's our own standard and is able to be changed on a whim. No longer is our aim the standard which God has set. It's the opinions of man that matters most.

Again, I would submit to you that it's the Scriptures set before us today that is the standard for our religion and consecration to our Creator God. This is the Divine standard and our part is to give to Him the sacrifice that is acceptable to God. A sacrifice that requires our all. It's a sacrifice that is complete and according to His rule laid down in the Word of God. Nothing less than this can be pleasing to God. Nothing half-hearted can please Him. It's a "living sacrifice, holy, and perfect will of God." It's a full renunciation of self, a free recognition of God's right to us, and a sincere offering for all to Him - this is our requirement.

So where are you today? Do you have a common place religion? I'm reading through Leviticus and all the sacrifices that had to be made unto God. No offering to God was acceptable unless it was a "whole burnt offering." Are you putting yourself entirely at the disposal of God? In your devotion and consecration to God, what are you aiming at - His standard or your own?

A Scriptural standard of religion includes a clear relational experience with the Lord. This religion or relationship is one that appeals to the inner consciousness. It's both internal as well as external. Not only are we to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling," but "it's God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). Folks, there is a "good work in you," as well as a life outside to be lived. The new birth is a definite experience, proved by a definite, clear inward assurance given by the Holy Spirit that we are the children of God.

Let us be a people not given to a commonplace religion of our own making and standard. Let us be a peculiar people. Let us be a people of prayer. Let us be a people of the Word. Let us be people of love and service to our Lord. We must aim for His standard - we must aim for Christ our standard.

Nothing But the Truth - Part 2 by Pastor Nick Moore

Word-Centered Counseling
Another area in which our ministerial walk has not quite matched our conservative talk is in the area of Biblical Counseling. As a pastor, it never ceases to amaze me the way that the people in Southern Baptist (and most evangelical) congregations have the tendency to draw a radical distinction between the elements of 2 Peter 1:3, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” Most believe that God has given us (in the Bible) everything we need for “life” (namely eternal life), but what they don’t often see is that He has also given us everything we need for “godliness.” In other words, most of the people in our churches believe that the Bible is sufficient to save, but is somehow insufficient to sanctify. And it is at this point that we come face to face with the stark reality that the reason most of our people believe this distinction is because this is precisely what they have been trained to believe.

What else are they to conclude when every book their pastor told them to read for pre-marital and/or marital counseling talks more about principles of psychology and communication than about what the Bible says regarding marriage? What else are they to conclude when every time their pastor is posed with a difficult issue in the life of a member, his default reaction has not been to reproof or exhort that person, but to refer him/her to a “professional” so that he/she can be “diagnosed” and the appropriate prescription ascertained? What else are they to conclude when their pastor’s preaching points them to “tips” and “principles” more than to the depth of their depravity and the solution God has provided in Christ not just so that they can be justified, but also that they may be sanctified? Do we really believe that the Bible is power behind true “life-change”? Do we really believe that God’s Word alone, and not the voice of secular wisdom, brings about true “abundant life”? Do we really believe that we are what the Bible says we are, that we have what the Bible says we have, that we can do what the Bible says we can do? Do we really believe what the Bible says we should believe…really?

Word-Centered Mission

One final area in which there seems to be a disconnect between our words and our work in the SBC is in that of Mission. I recently heard from a young minister who attended a popular “ministry” conference that was attended by thousands from various “ministry” and “leadership” responsibilities across the nation. He told me about one of the authors/speakers who spoke there and the invaluable leadership insight he provided for his hearers: “leaders should always strive to be humble.” At first, I had to admit my relief that such a timely and appropriate word was given to such a vast audience of current/future leaders. But then, my friend informed me of the follow-up line, “Leaders should strive for humility, because humility just works.” Is this really why leaders should strive for humility? Not because the Bible says we should, but because it “just works?” We can roll our eyes. We can shake our heads. Or, we can turn right around and realize that this kind of thinking is merely the logical conclusion of what we’ve been preaching for quite some time.

When church-growth is more about method than message [Check out Scott Wilson’s Post, “The Word Grows: A New Testament Plan for Church” and “Does Inerrancy Really Matter?”]. When leadership is more about charisma than character. When results are measured more financially and fiscally than by faithfulness and fruit of the Spirit, what are we communicating? The church of the Lord Jesus is not followed by an “Inc.” The Great Commission is not merely another program or initiative to be executed and evaluated according to the principles of worldly wisdom and pragmatism. Rather the church is the Kingdom counterculture. The church is the outpost of Christ’s rule and reign. The church is the beacon by which the “manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph 3:10). And remember, Christ has not entrusted His mission to CEO’s and Moguls, but rather He has given it to the “the things that are not” (1 Cor 1:28).

Before being delivered over for crucifixion, Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth” (John 17:17). The question that comes to us, as Southern Baptists in the 21^st century, is this: Will we truly be a people of the Book? Will we truly be a people of the Word? Will we truly be a people of the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth? Our only answer can be…so help us God!

 

About the author

Lead pastor at the Spencer County Campus of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Nick has a BA in Biblical and Theological Studies from Boyce College, an M.Div from the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he is also currently pursuing a Ph.d in Old Testament Theology. Nick has been married to Kyndra for 7 years and they have five children, Jacob, James, Elizabeth, Sophia, and a baby girl due in May ’11.

And Nothing But The Truth...Part 1 by Nick Moore

Note: This Post originally
appeared on www.baptisttwentyone.com

This is my Bible…I am what it says I am, I have what it says I have, and I can do what it says I can do.” If you are still with me after reading these lines, you are probably either at least contemplating moving on to another post that is worth reading or you are waiting with bared teeth for me to turn the tables and rant on the theological vapidity of the popularizer of this creed. The reason you have reacted this way, if you are even remotely aware of the current climate of evangelicalism, is that you have grown to associate these words with emptiness. These words have become almost inextricably tied to a man known for lifting his Bible high and declaring its absolute authority one minute, only to turn around the next and lay it on the lectern for its pages to be rustled no more…at least until next week’s chant.

In the following, I can promise neither a blog post worth reading nor a seething rant on prosperity theology. But what I do hope to show is the way in which you and I as Southern Baptists are much closer to that Lakewood lectern than any of us would care to admit, both in word and in deed. For all of the sloganeering surrounding and flowing from the Conservative Resurgence (CR) in the Southern Baptist Convention, the result is that Southern Baptists are not, in the end, as much a “people of the book” as we might think. Of course, by listening to our rhetoric, we absolutely are. While we may not (for fear of negative association) stand up and proclaim the above cited creed, we regularly (and rightly) articulate ones just like it regarding our firm convictions on the “inerrant”, “infallible”, and “authoritative” word of God that our SBC forebears fought so hard to defend. The question we must answer, though, as we follow on the heels of these warriors is- will such rhetoric ring hollow for us? Will we as Southern Baptists in the 21^st century be found equally guilty of hauling our “inspired” Bibles into pulpits, counseling offices, and board rooms, touting their sufficiency, only to turn around and “lay them on the lectern” in favor of practical tips, pop psychology, and trendy new tactics? I would suggest this is a very real danger that exists for our generation in at least three major areas.

Word-Centered Preaching

The heart-cry of the CR was “Back To The Bible.” CR leaders rightly touted the Bible as the inspired word of God and the authoritative means by which God has revealed Himself to His people, but at some point in the journey, these phrases morphed into little more than clichéd slogans. Now, many of the same preachers who get red-faced and hyper-perspirant defending the “authority of the Bible,” are the ones who fill their ministries with endless treatments of the epistles and never find their way into Leviticus, Judges, or the Minor Prophets, except for (maybe) an occasional anecdote or illustration. After all, “aren’t we New Testament believers?” they’ll say. Now, many of the same preachers who, as young men, watched the CR unfold before their eyes and whose very ministries exist as direct beneficiaries of the CR, are turning around and saying things like, “Well, of course all Scripture is equally inspired, but I’m just not convinced that all Scripture is equally profitable” (cue “creative” and “hip” collection of quasi-biblical material strung together into a “helpful” and “inspirational” “talk” or “message”.)

Is this what our SBC forebears fought for? Is this the hill on which they deemed it worthy to die? So that their sons and grandsons could wave around a Bible and call it “inerrant” while (practically) denying its power? I somehow doubt it. As many have rightly observed- the Battle For The Bible did not begin in the 20^th century and it will not be won until the kingdom of this world has become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ. In the meantime, however, we as inheritors of this faith must champion the Word in our pulpits. That means we can call our preaching “expository” all we want, but unless we are standing up week in and out actually “exposing” the text and its meaning, we will continue to create biblically anemic congregations with insatiable appetites for “lists” and “principles”, but not for Jesus. That means we can no longer begin sermon preparation in search of “preachable” points likely to garner “hoorahs” and “amens,” but must instead begin with the sacred text, which might not win us much approval or praise, but has been promised not to return void (Is 55:11).

In light of this post by Nick Moore, B21 thought it would be helpful to show a video of the Kimyal people receiving the New Testament for the first time… and to see their hunger for the Word

Redifining God

An article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported in April 21, 2000 that "Across the country, the faithful are redefining God. Dissatisfied with conventional images of an authoritarian or paternalistic deity, people are embracing quirky, individualistic conceptions of god to suit their own spiritual needs.”

You might say, ‘yes, this is what our culture is doing’, but I would submit to you that it’s also in our churches.  We have a tendency today to redefine God into who we want Him to be.  He’s a god that is okay with the middle class American way of life.  He’s a god that’s okay with our self-satisfied lukewarm faith.  He’s comfortable with our apathy and half-hearted devotion to him.  He’s comfortable with our materialistic indulgences.  He’s okay with these things, why? – because we are. 

And so what do we do? – we fashion a god who looks a lot like us and this is a dangerous thing because when we gather together each week for our so called worship services what happens is not true worship to the revealed God of the Scriptures who is worthy of our praise.  In all reality the only person we are worshipping is ourselves and the actual God we’re supposed to be worshipping has been grossly mis-defined.  We become just like the Israelites who fashioned a golden calf in the desert.  We worship a god that we’ve crafted in our own mind and this god is one that we can control and he’s okay with whatever we do, to include even our sin.    

Our goal must not ever be to redefine God, because He’s not open to redefinition.  The goal is revelation –to see how He has chosen to reveal Himself in scripture. 

The WSJ goes on to say that “These gentler, almost mystical forms of theology have found a receptive audience in today’s affluent society.  Americans are cobbling together a spiritual life from a variety of religious influences, along with a dash of yoga and psychotherapy or whatever else moves them.”  This is an example of man-centered theology in which people will be quick to quote “Cast all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (1 Peter 5:7).  But avoid verses that say “If any man will come after me (Jesus), let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24).   

“People seek out these new gods the way they seek out new products in the marketplace, ‘says Randall Styers, assistant professor at Union Theological Seminary, in New York.  ‘It’s the ultimate form of individualism.” 

There are some key questions that we all need to think about: Who are we worshipping?  Is it the true God that has revealed Himself in Scripture or is it some other god that we’ve created in our minds?

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.

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.

Can Scriptures err and still be inspired?

Another question is whether or not Scriptures can err and still be inspired. It has already been stated above that foundational to Christianity is that we do hold to the verbal and plenary view of Scripture. It is now important to look at some of the difficulties that come up. Two key terms must be defined first before answering this question. First, the term of inerrancy, which is defined as the doctrinal teaching that Scriptures in the original manuscripts are true in all that they teach, and thus without error. This definition does not mean that the Bible tells us every fact there is to know about any one subject, but it affirms that what it does say about any subject is true. The other key term is infallibility which is defined as the doctrinal teaching sometimes used synonymously with inerrancy that the Scriptures cannot fail in matters of faith and practice. Many have abandoned inerrancy for that if infallibility.

What are the arguments for inerrancy?

There are several arguments for inerrancy that will allow for a better understanding. First, if the Scriptures are "God breathed," representing the voice of God, and God is without error, and then the Scriptures are without error. One of the premises here is that God is truthful and therefore beyond error. Secondly, God is the ultimate author of Scripture. Thus, Scripture is truthful and therefore beyond any possibility of error. A second argument is that Scripture contains historical and / or scientific error, and then its entire theological message is placed in jeopardy, since the theological message of Scripture is based upon historical fact. Who would then have the ability to judge what is accurate and what is not? Thirdly, it can be argued that inerrancy is inherently tied to absolute authority. Any denial of inerrancy produces a slippery slope in which the one who denies this doctrine is open to deny the authority of Scripture on any matter. Finally, there is the argument that the Bible does not contain any errors. Here, the premise is that the Bible is, as defined, inerrant. It would also say that everything the Bible says is true according to the intention to which it was written. Concluding again the Bible is true, i.e., inerrant. Of course there are objections to these arguments.

What are the objections for inerrancy?

The first objection states that since the Scriptures were written by man, one would expect them to accurately reflect the characteristic in all men which is error. To deny error in Scripture is to deny the humanity of Scripture. Secondly, there is the objection that inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts. Since there are no original manuscripts, it is irrelevant to talk about inerrancy. Lastly, there is the objection that the Bible contains errors; therefore the Bible is not inerrant.

What are the responses to the objections of inerrancy?

While it is true that the Bible is a human work, and humans often err, it is also true that it is a divine work, and God does not err. It is not necessary to err to be human. If this argument is true, and human beings err, it is also true that Christ is a human being and so Christ errs. The fallacy of this argument lies in the premise that to err is human. Error in not a foregone necessity of humanity. A second response is that while it is true we do not have the original manuscripts, this does not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy; it simply makes textual criticism all the more important. It is possible to have access to the originals through diligent study and research. Simply stated, textual criticism does not invalidate inerrancy, but inerrancy validates textual criticism. The last response is when the original context and intention is understood, taking into account the science of textual criticism, all alleged errors are shown to be based upon either faulty hermeneutics or scribal errors.

In summary, there are some facts that are important to keep in mind about inerrancy. First, the Bible does speak in accommodating language (e.g., "the sun went down."). Also, the Bible does use round numbers (7,000 killed, instead of 6,899). Thirdly, the Bible does summarize. The book of Matthew in describing the Sermon on the Mount is longer than in the book of Luke. Another fact is that consideration must be made of the genre of the individual books in the Bible. Lastly, the Bible does use free quotations in both the Old and New Testaments.

Conclusion

The doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy are important doctrines that are foundational for Evangelicals in this postmodern era. We have answered several questions in the discussion. First of all inspiration is where God guided the writers of Scripture by giving them his words, yet fully utilizing the human elements. In addition, it works in connection with revelation, whereby God reveals his truth to mankind. This view is the verbal, plenary view that attests that it is 100% man and 100% God. In addition, the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts and is infallible in its doctrinal teachings and cannot fail in matters of faith and practice. By having a correct view and accurate understand of both inspiration and inerrancy is also imperative in having a correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Chafer, Lewis S. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1978

Enns, Paul. The Moody handbook of theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.

Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. A general introduction to the Bible. (Rev. and expanded.) Chicago: Moody Press. 1996, c1986.

Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine . Leicester,

England; Grand Rapids, MI.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.

Knight, G.W. The Pastoral Epistles: A commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids, MI., Carlisle, England: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992.

Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canonpress, 2001.

Olson, Roger, E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief. Downer Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Ryrie, Charles C. What You Should Know About Inerrancy. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981

Shedd, William G.T. Classic Reprint of Dogmatic Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1979

Thomas, Robert L., Updated: Wilkins, Don L. NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1998.

Unger, M.F., Harrison, R.K., Vos, H.F., Barber, C.J. The new Unger's Bible dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.

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

White, James R. Scripture Alone. Bloomington, MN: Baker Publishing Group, 2004.

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).