Carson, Piper & Keller on Biblical Authority in an Age of Uncertainty

Biblical Authority in an Age of Uncertainty from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Tim Keller: Sinned in a Literal Adam, Raised in a Literal Christ

Question: If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve, how can we know where sin and suffering came from?

Answer: Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in a historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue.

 

"Compared to other questions laypeople ask pastors about creation and evolution, I find the concerns of this question much more well-grounded. Indeed, I must disclose, I share them. Many orthodox Christians who believe God used evolutionary biological processes to bring about human life not only do not take Genesis 1 as history, but also deny that Genesis 2 is an account of real events. Adam and Eve, in their view, were not historical figures but an allegory or symbol of the human race. Genesis 2, then, is a symbolic story or myth that conveys the truth that human beings all have and do turn away from God and are sinners.
Before I share my concerns with this view, let me make a clarification. One of my favorite Christian writers (that’s putting it mildly), C. S.Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I do not think the lack of such belief means he cannot be saved. But my concern is for the church corporately and for its growth and vitality over time. Will the loss of a belief in the historical fall weaken some of our historical, doctrinal commitments at certain crucial points? Here are two points where that could happen."

Reconstructing The Pooh Community: Richard Bauckham

This essay from Richard Bauckham is hilarious. If you’re a Biblical Studies buff you must read it....

New Testament research is a field which has much to learn from comparative study—

from observing the trends and results of research in parallel fields of study. So I begin

my lecture this evening with an excursion into just such a parallel field—an excursion

from which we may be able to return to recent trends in research on the Gospel of

John with a fresh angle of vision.

 

Probably most of you will be familiar with the Winnie-the-Pooh stories—the

popular children’s books traditionally attributed to A A Milne. But you may not all be

familiar with recent developments in Winnie-the-Pooh scholarship, which has been

revolutionized in recent years as a result of one major methodological breakthrough

which virtually all Pooh scholarship now takes for granted. This is the seminal insight

that the Winnie-the-Pooh stories can be read on more than one level. Ostensibly, of

course, they are the story of a group of animals living in a forest, who are in some

sense identified with the soft toys belonging to Christopher Robin. But on another level

they are the story of the community behind the books, that community of children for

which the books were written. In the Winnie-the-Pooh books one specific community

of English children early this century—now generally known to scholars as the Pooh

community—has encoded for us a wonderfully revealing account of itself. With this

methodological key it is possible to a large extent to reconstruct that community: its

character, its history, its passions, its factions. For example, this community of children

is clearly situated in a rural and rather isolated context—a small English village, one

should assume. All the action of the story takes place in a forest, and the small caste

of characters seems to live entirely in a world of its own. The outside world never

impinges. Awareness that other children exist beyond the inward-looking circle of

the Pooh community is indicated only by the very generalized and vague references

to Rabbit’s friends and relations.

 

Clearly the Pooh books were written for a specific community with a strong sense

of its distinctive identity—a closed, one might even say sectarian group which prided

itself on its special insider knowledge. We can see this in features of the writings which

would have baffled any outsider but provide the insider with confirmation of their

special status as privy to a kind of esoteric knowledge. Several times we find alleged

explanations which to the outsider would not be explanations at all. For example:

 

When I first heard his name [Winnie-the-Pooh], I said, just as you are going to say,

‘But I thought he was a boy?’

‘So did I,’ said Christopher Robin.

‘Then you can’t call him Winnie?’

‘I don’t.’

‘But you said—‘

‘He’s Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don’t you know what

“ther” means?’

‘Ah, yes, now I do,’ I said quickly; and I hope you do too, because it is

all the explanation you are going to get.”

(Winnie-the-Pooh

[London: Methuen, 1963] p 1)

 

Or again:

Nobody seemed to know where they came from, but there they were in

the Forest: Kanga and Roo. When Pooh asked Christopher Robin, ‘How

did they come here?’ Christopher Robin said, ‘In the Usual Way, if you

know what I mean, Pooh,’ and Pooh, who didn’t, said ‘Oh!’ Then he

nodded his head twice and said, ‘In the Usual Way. Ah!’

 

In that passage, Pooh, the bear of little brain, fails to understand, but the readers can

pride themselves on their own superior understanding. Clearly we are dealing with

sectarian literature which not only belongs within the group but bolsters that group’s

sense of superiority to the world in general—the general reader who cannot begin to

understand what ‘the usual way’ would be. Click below to read the rest!

An Interesting Post on Pseudonymity by one of My Prof's

Although I do not think any of the New Testament books (letters, histories, etc) are pseudonimous (for various reasons... which we can get into in the comments section of anyone is interested), I appreciate Dr. Byron's insights and honesty. The fact that he can say, "I'm not sure" on such a hot issue impresses me. It reveals that Dr. Byron is more interested in finding out the truth, than impressing his peers. I also appreciated his reflection on contemporary guilds and publishing houses. How do we fix this? Dr. Byron thinks that refusing to make issues like this one a litmus test for orthodoxy is a start. What do you think?

Read the article here...
http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/05/pseudonymity-and-new-testament-problem.html

If you want to read more from Dr. Byron I have his link (The Biblical World) listed under "Blogs I Follow"

Scot McKnight on George Eldon Ladd

There is a great post on Jesus Creed about a great scholar. You can click the link to read the article. Below is my favorite quote from the article...can I get an Amen?

"...I don’t believe our goal as Bible or theology scholars is to be deemed among the finest of scholars or to find a place at the table, but to be faithful to Jesus Christ and to the gospel and to orthodox theology and to academic rigor. Yes, we are to work to discover and to be creative, but the driving passion to prove ourselves at the feet of others falls short of a true Christian telos. I’d put it this way: we are called to be faithful, whether we are accepted or not."

Read all of the article here...
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/05/07/george-eldon-ladd/

Why "Higher Biblical Criticism" Ain't So High

"I particularly love this crisis because I’ve experienced it myself. The basic storyline goes like this: good Bible-believing Christian student goes to college. College Religion department employs professor who takes arrogant pleasure in deconstructing the Christian faith. Professor appeals to “higher criticism” while stroking beard convincingly in order to discount, discredit, and discourage Christian theism. Student feels stupid in front of classmates, has crisis of faith, and begins to doubt prior convictions."


http://www.cdomaha.com/blog/?p=2497

I'm Calling For A Reformation!

Many Western seminaries are having an identity crisis. Though the majority of students enter seminary in hopes of finding encouragement from their Bibles and passion for the gospel ministry, more and more are leaving discouraged. A smaller number are giving up on the ministry, having been convinced that their faith is no longer tenable (defensible).

How did it get to be this way? It is my belief that the modernism of the last century has paved the way. It was the modern age that convinced Christian academics that unadulterated objectivity (having no bias) was not only possible, but helpful. It was modernism that introduced the fallacy that scholarship is a calling to academics, but not to ministry. As a result a number of seminaries have come to employ ministry oblivious academics. Their teachings do violence to a student’s confidence in the word of God, resulting in people being led astray. In my opinion, there are two reasons this is happening.

1) The false belief that God calls people to scholarship, but not to ministry. In the New Testament there is no such position. The only time teaching is mentioned, it is mention within the context of the church (I Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11).

2) Christian scholarship’s (intentional and unintentional) legitimation of scholars who do not claim a saving faith in Jesus Christ. I have been reminded of Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 6:14:” Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” What can someone who doesn’t claim to live a life in relationship to Christ and the Holy Spirit possibly contribute to the interpretation of the Bible? I for one, do not think that it can be done ( I do not mean to say that non-believers have nothing to contribute, or that God cannot speak to or through non-Christians, only that if scholarship is a ministry, then nonbelievers can no longer speak into this context. It would be similar to ordaining non-believing pastors or elders).

So what might be the way forward? Well, it is a long road ahead, of that there can be no doubt. It has taken generations to get us where we are, and it will take time to reform the academy in the ways it needs. The bottom-line is that Western seminaries have some difficult decisions to make and seminary students need to strive toward biblical faithfulness, even if their teachers do not.

That said, there are Godly seminaries, and even Godly professors at some not-so-Godly seminaries. My goal in this post isn’t to undermine a scholarly and well-informed education, but to encourage necessary boundaries. Professors I have studied under that teach scholarship as ministry, have played an invaluable role in both my academic and spiritual growth.

So, how do you tell if an institution has good boundaries? Well, checking their doctrinal statement is a good start. Here are some questions you might ask.

1) What does this seminary believe and teach about the Bible’s authority?
2) What is their primary mission…is it the preaching of the gospel and discipleship?
3) What institutions did the faculty come out of and what are the values of those institutions?
4) How committed is an institution to the ministry of the church?
5) If the institution publishes an academic journal, read some articles. Ask yourself if the articles strengthen or weaken the ministry of the church.

These are my thoughts...What are yours?

Jesus vs. Paul | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

A valuable and timely article by Scot McKnight. Personally, I find the purported dichotomy between Jesus and Paul excessively reductionistic. Scholars too often forget that the Bible does not offer us a comprehensive account of all that Jesus or Paul taught.Thankfully God provided us with the both the gospels and the letters. Scot's location of unity in the Gospel itself is a good starting point I think.

Jesus vs. Paul | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

All Biblical Studies Students Should Watch This! 10 Lessons for Future Scholars from D.A. Carson

Watch Video Here

"Fight with every fiber of your being the common disjunction between “objective study” of Scripture and “devotional reading” of Scripture, between “critical reading” of the Bible and “devotional reading” of the Bible. The place where this tension usually first becomes a problem is at seminary. Students enter with the habit of reading the Bible “devotionally” (as they see it). They enjoy reading the Bible, they feel warm and reverent as they do so, they encounter God through its pages, some have memorized many verses and some chapters, and so forth. Seminary soon teaches them the rudiments of Greek and Hebrew, principles of exegesis, hermeneutical reflection, something about textual variants, distinctions grounded in different literary genres, and more. In consequence, students learn to read the Bible “critically” or “objectively” for their assignments, but still want to read the Bible “devotionally” in their quiet times. Every year a handful of students end up at the door of assorted lecturers and professors asking how to handle this tension. They find themselves trying to have their devotions, only to be harassed by intruding thoughts about textual variants. How should one keep such polarized forms of reading the Bible apart? This polarization, this disjunction, kept unchecked, may then characterize or even harass the biblical scholar for the rest of his or her life. That scholar may try to write a commentary on, say, Galatians, where at least part of the aim is to master the text, while preserving time for daily devotional readying.

My response, forcefully put, is to resist this disjunction, to eschew it, to do everything in your power to destroy it. Scripture remains Scripture, it is still the Word of God before which (as Isaiah reminds us) we are to tremble, the very words we are to revere, treasure, digest, meditate on, and hide in our hearts (minds?), whether we are reading the Bible at 5:30 AM at the start of a day, or preparing an assignment for an exegesis class at 10:00 PM. If we try to keep apart these alleged two ways of reading, then we will be irritated and troubled when our “devotions” are interrupted by a sudden stray reflection about a textual variant or the precise force of a Greek genitive; alternatively, we may be taken off guard when we are supposed to be preparing a paper or a sermon and suddenly find ourselves distracted by a glimpse of God’s greatness that is supposed to be reserved for our “devotions.” So when you read “devotionally,” keep your mind engaged; when you read “critically” (i.e., with more diligent and focused study, deploying a panoply of “tools”), never, ever, forget whose Word this is. The aim is never to become a master of the Word, but to be mastered by it."

This is why I admire D.A. Carson. Here is some good advice for those working toward a master's degree or a PhD in Biblical Studies.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/the-scholar-as-pastor

Inerrancy and Baggage

Inerrancy and Baggage

Does using terms like "infallible" or "inspired" carry more baggage than "inerrancy?"

The Wrong Way To Read The Bible

Two opposite errors exist in approaching the Bible. One is not to read it. The other is to know it so well that you miss Jesus. Jesus pointed out this error: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40).

Are you surprised to believe this error exists? We constantly talk about reading and studying the Bible as an unqualified good. But clearly, the way we read the Bible is just as important as reading it.

So how can you know if you might be reading the Bible, looking for life, but missing Jesus completely? Here are a few clues:

1) You read the Bible to reinforce what you believe, not challenge what you believe.
2) You imagine yourself as the type of person who believes the things you read about.
3) You think the things you read are especially applicable for people you know, but not for you.
4) You imagine yourself as the hero of the story, not the person or people who are unbelieving. You frequently ask in your heart, “How could these people be so unbelieving?” For instance, when you read the story of the Israelites wandering in the desert you might say, “How could those Israelites grumble about food and drink when they just saw God part the Red Sea?” But you are completely blind to how you grumble at work or home when you’re afraid of losing something.
5) You love the attention garnered from your knowledge of the Bible, but give little thought to how you have applied what you have read.

Maybe the Bible should come with a warning label: “Beware: reading this book incorrectly will make you twice as fit for hell as when you began.”

Don’t miss Jesus. Go to him and find life.

This post was written by Dave Dorr and was originally published at
http://theresurgence.com/2010/10/10/the-wrong-way-to-read-the-bible

Doubt vs Faith: What You Talkin' About, Willis?

One of my favorite shows as a boy was Diff’rent Strokes, most remembered by it’s star Gary Coleman (who died this year) and that iconic phrase, “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”. This phrase worked its way into our house years ago and it conveys the same basic message that it did on Diff’rent Strokes: Whatever you are trying to say, I’m not following you. Recently, while reading and blogging, I have found this phrase echoing through my head. As an ultra-opinionated guy, it’s often because I don’t happen to agree with the author. Sometimes it’s because writers put forth ideas that are so nebulous, ideas so layered in double-meanings, that I find myself wanting to post “sp-sp-spit it out junior” in the comments section. An idea that tends to fit into the first category is what’s being put forth as the new litmus test of faith for many Christian thinkers: Doubt.

That’s right, faith equals doubt. Sound confusing? No longer is doubt to be considered an obstacle to faith, but rather the legitimizer of faith. Some seem bent on the idea that because the testimony of the Bible is sometimes doubt-worthy (it's not), our doubts should be embraced as the new beginning of a more realistic faith. Under this new definition, the Bible is no longer to be considered a primary, rather Christians must look to Jesus for an example of how to live (or journey if you prefer). I have two concerns with this way of thinking. First, as I have stated before, if we cannot trust the account given to us by the gospel writers, than we cannot reasonably know or assert anything about Jesus’ life and character. Second, without a trustworthy Biblical account of the life and teaching of Jesus, adherents to this strange new doubt/faith are forced (or inclined) to follow a Jesus created in their own image; which in reality, turns out to be no Jesus at all.

While I agree that there is a sanctifying work in doubt, I do not believe, as some, that it should be celebrated as privileged spirituality. Writers like Brian McLaren have infused his readers with ideas that equate doubt with humility and accuse clarity of being dishonest (or unexamined). Within this paradigm, one might conclude that confusion is the new acumen (intellect).

Let me clarify (because I think clarity is important) that I too believe that spiritual honesty is paramount, and that doubts are part of the human condition. I do not think that doubt is a sin. What I do think is that God desires to (like Thomas the apostle) move us past our doubts, not build a religion out of it. Thomas doubted, but he later learned that God was who He said He was (clarity). This kind of humility was exhibited by the father of a demon tormented child and his willingness to cry out, “help my unbelief” (Mk 9:24). Throughout my life and ministry I have been drawn to “good questions”. Sometimes these questions have led me to a submissive heart and then good answers. At other times my questions have led me to unhealthy thoughts and misguided understandings. In these times it has often taken a friend who cares enough to ask, “What you talkin’ about Willis?” to restore in me a heart that humbly cries, “my Lord and my God.”

“Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
(John 20:27)

Generous Unorthodoxy

Brian McLaren's new book "A new kind of Christianity" asserts 19th century liberalism and ignores the creeds of historical Christianity." Here are the links to a couple solid review articles posted earlier this year by Scot McKnight and Tim Challies.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/3.59.html

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/a-new-kind-of-christianity

And/or, watch a panel discussion between Albert Mohler, Jim Hamilton, Bruce Ware, Stephen Wellum, and Gregory Wills

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/chapel/chapel-spring-2010/panel-discussion-a-new-kind-of-christianity-brian-mclaren-recasts-the-gospel/

Is Post-Modern Liberalism really Pre-Modern Gnosticism?

A thought postulated by reforming Lutherans in a new article from Christianity Today. Here is the link

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/septemberweb-only/46-31.0.html

You're Already An Idiot!

Me too

The Apostle Paul taught that the “Word of the Cross” was (is) foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor. 1:18; see also 2:12-14). This statement, as I understand it, draws the logical implication that all Christians believe something that is and will always be illogical in the eyes of non-Christians.
As a seminarian, I have often been perplexed by teachers who confidently assert both the historicity and regenerating implications of Christ’s death and resurrection, while at the same time questioning and sometimes rejecting the historicity of miraculous Old Testament stories like the “global flood,” or “parting of the Red Sea”. When approached and asked to explain their lack of confidence in the biblical record, often the reply involves some reference to the number of scholars who don’t think it really happened, followed by a declaration that it makes Christianity “look foolish to assert such stories as historical.” The idea is… that by making Christian history more believable or reasonable, more people will believe in Jesus without having to be viewed as an idiot.
Here’s my thought… If we minimize the biblical stories of God’s mighty and miraculous deeds, how can we expect someone to accept that God is real, has a divine Son, that this Son came to the earth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death for all of humanity, and rose from the dead. Doesn’t that seem like nonsense? I mean, either God is in the business of working miracles, or we don’t have any hope in Christ. So why do we draw conclusions like this? (My personal opinion is that scholars have caved under pressure from secular scholastic institutions, academic journal editors, and liberal peer pressure in trade for professional legitimacy). Since there is no substantiated (historical, scientific, or otherwise) argument against the old Bible stories, other than probability, I see no reason to question them. The Apostle Paul had a similar debate with some Jewish academic types… I think he had the right idea…

“Now, if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”(I Corinthians 15: 12-14 NASB)

What’s more important, a “legitimate” profession, or a legitimate faith? That is the question.

Need Help Getting Sleep At Night?

I just posted a paper I wrote last year titled, Bad Thinking: Modern Scholarship’s Neutralization of Conservative Minority Voices. Check it out if counting sheep isn't getting the job done (or if you have a bone-to-pick with the modern critical paradigm). Click the link listed under "pages".

Empty Churches with Open Arms

My family and I had the privilege of living in Amsterdam for about 5 months in 2004-05. While there, we were struck by both the post-Christian culture and the emptiness of the churches. A salient example was the Oudikirk (old church) which towers above the neon windows of the Red Light District. There it stood... a symbol of faith and holiness surrounded by prostitute windows, drug dealers, and thrill seeking tourists. A church that we learned was at one time overflowing with people and salvation...now filled only with art and spiritual emptiness.

For the last decade the debates have raged throughout American churches over issues of morality and lifestyle choice. There has been a push for the normalization of life decisions that the Bible identifies as sinful. These same decisions are no longer debated in European culture. The debate there is over and done, and the verdict is that any lifestyle chosen is okay. The result over time has been two fold; 1) churches in Europe have become more “accepting” and “supportive” of immoral lifestyle choices; and 2) the same churches, over time, have become more irrelevant and largely abandoned. Somewhere along the way people, having found the affirmation they were seeking, had no reason to remain in churches that taught that the Bible was sometimes authoritative and sometimes not. Simply put, if it wasn’t all true maybe none of it was true.

In the United States the battle rages on. Scholars and pastors behave more like teenage girls rummaging through the closet looking for what fits and gains peer approval than keepers of God’s Word. Many churches are coming to the conclusion that the more “accepting” they are of people, the more their churches will grow. They may be right in the short term. But eventually people will ask themselves why they are following a religion where many of the teachings have to be explained away, deemed as no longer culturally relevant, or obscured to a point beyond recognition in order to become acceptable to its followers. . Like the church in Europe, if the debate is won in favor of those who wish to minimize the Bible’s authority and influence, the church will be abandoned by the same.

I Just Can't Seem To Get Sex Off Of My Mind

I heard a commercial for a local church on a classic rock station in the city where I work. The confident voice, pumping through the speakers argued that in his opinion, Christians, by addressing issues of marital infidelity, homosexuality, and abstinence are overstating sexual concerns. The challenge posed by the radio personality was to somehow follow God's advice about sexuality, while not addressing specific contemporary concerns. Is this possible? Is it helpful?
On hearing this monologue, two thoughts immediately came to mind. The first is the (in my humble opinion) misguided contemporary Christian conviction that all sins are the same. Many Christians would be surprised to find that the Bible doesn't teach this conviction. The Bible does not teach that all sins are equal before God. What the Bible does teach is that God equally forgives all sins. No matter what the sin may be, once confessed, is forgiven on account of Christ's sacrificial death and victorious resurrection.
The second thought was that Christians have consistently focused on the issues that give impact and conscience within its own contemporary context. To say that Christians talk too much about homosexuality is like criticising Christians in the 1960's and 70's for focusing too much on issues of racial equality, or rebuking the early church reformers for overemphasising the priesthood of believers.

Christians, in order to be relevant and influential must address the concerns and issues of their times.