Did the Apostle Peter have a Bad Hermeneutic?

This essay written by D.A. Carson is both interesting and helpful. Though the title may seems heady, I think this post is helpful for anyone to read. Carson takes on a topic oft discussed in colleges and seminaries, and offers a thorough and satisfying reply. I for one, am far more intellectually satisfied by Carson's explanation than with the alternative (which I have heard far more often).Here is the question Carson addresses:

"I’m reading through Acts this month. In Acts 1:20, Peter’s talking about Judas and quotes Psalm 69, 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it.' But Psalm 69 doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Judas. In fact, that psalm seems somewhat anti-gospel. It’s all about David wanting God to smite his enemies, but Jesus said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they’re doing.” Did Peter have a bad hermeneutic? If someone tried to quote a psalm like this without apostolic authority, would you call them crazy?"

Read the post here...
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/07/10/you-asked-did-the-apostle-peter-have-a-bad-hermeneutic/

Panel Discussion on Preaching the Old Testament

Watch Tim Keller, John Piper, Crawford Loritts, D.A. Carson, and Brian Chapell discuss preaching the OT. I highly respet a few of these guys.


Panel on Preaching Christ in the OT - Keller, Piper, Loritts, Carson, Chapell - TGC 2011 from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

In Honor of Don Carson for Proclaiming the Gospel Unashamed

D.A. Caron was just honored at the annual Gospel Coalition conference for his contribution to Biblical Studies and to the furtherance of the Gospel. During the event Dr. Carson was presented with a copy of a new book being published in his honor (link to pre-order a copy below).

Purchase the book here...
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Times-Testament-Occasion-Birthday/dp/1433507196?tag=thegospcoal-20

Read the full article here...
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/04/19/in-honor-of-don-carson/

D.A. Carson on "Love Wins"

  

Here is a N.T. scholar's take on Rob's use of Scripture

Click below to listen to or download the MP3 from the Gospel Coalition Conference
http://tgc-audio.s3.amazonaws.com/2011-conference/sessioncarson_lovewins.mp3


For more information on the Gospel Coalition visit
www.thegospelcoalition.org

D.A. Carson on Biblical Exegesis

RC Sproul interviews DA Carson on biblical exegesis from Ligonier on Vimeo.

Westminster Catechism Rap featuring D.A. Carson

This is worth the listen...even if only to hear Carson say "Westside"

Westminster Catechism Rap

How do we reconcile the Old Testament and New Testament God?

What is Inerrancy?

Here is a clip from D.A. Carson for the Ehrman project

A Great Quote from Carson's Newest

I am reading D.A. Carson's newest book, "Collected Writings on Scripture," and I found this quote...I had to share

“Some of us who would never dream of formally disentagling some parts of the Bible from the rest and declaring them less authoritative than other parts can by exegetical ingenuity get the Scriptures to say just about whatever we want … To our shame we have hungered to be masters of the Word much more than we have hungered to be mastered by it.

The pervasiveness of the problem erupts in the “Christian” merchant whose faith has no bearing on the integrity of his or her dealings, or in the way material possessions are assessed. It is reflected in an accelerated divorce rate in Christian homes and among the clergy themselves – with little sense of shame and no entailment in their “ministries.” It is seen in its most pathetic garb when considerable exegetical skill goes into proving, say, that the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexuality but not homosexuality itself (though careful handling of the evidence overturns the thesis), or that the Bible’s use of “head” in passages dealing with male/female relationships follows allegedly characteristic Greek usage and, therefore, means “source” (when close scrutiny of the primary evidence fails to turn up more than a handful of disputable instances of the meaning “source” in over two thousand occurrences). It finds new lease when popular evangelicals publically abandon any mention of “sin”- allegedly on the ground that the term no longer “communicates” – without recognizing that adjacent truths (e.g. those dealing with the fall, the law of God, the nature of transgression, the wrath of God, and even the gracious atonement itself) undergo telling transformation.

While I fear that evangelicalism is headed for another severe conflict on the doctrine of Scripture, and while it is necessary to face these impending debates with humility and courage, what is far more alarming is the diminishing authority of the Scriptures in the churches. This is taking place not only among those who depreciate the consistent truthfulness of Scripture but also (if for different reasons) among those who most vociferously defend it. To some extent we are all part of the problem; and perhaps we can do most to salvage something of value from the growing fragmentation by pledging ourselves in repentance and faith to learning and obeying God’s most holy Word. Then we shall also be reminded that the challenge to preserve and articulate a fully-consistent and orthodox doctrine of Scripture cannot be met by intellectual powers alone, but only on our knees and by the power of God.”

Contrarian Reflections on Individualism

"Individualism has debased evangelicalism into a kind of syncretism; spiritually, we need instruction on how to meet the challenges.In a recent and generally excellent book on ecclesiology, Jonathan Leeman devotes not a few pages to denouncing the individualism which, as he sees it, is one of the evils that blinds many people, especially in the West, from seeing how important the church is in the Bible. In short, on all sides we are being taught that individualism dominates Western thought, and it is bad."

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-3/editorial-contrarian-reflections-on-individualism

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

D.A. Carson on "What the Church Needs"

I found this video to be both challenging and thought provoking. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Book Reviews From My Summer Reading

An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson and Moo

I found this volume super helpful. Carson and Moo did a great job of handling the arguments and controversies. I walked away feeling that I had been given all of the necessary information. The authors were not only careful to give all sides of the argument, but they were also careful not to make assertions without backing them up. My copy is filled with highlighter marks and comments. I'm certain that I will be referencing this book for years to come.

An Introduction to the New Testament by David deSilva

Another great volume. Dr. desilva's strength is in giving an incredible amount of background and context information. In this regard I would rate deSilva's introduction higher than Carson and Moo's (to be fair to the authors they did state that it wasn't their purpose for the volume).Where I wouldn't rate deSilva's volume as high as Carson and Moo's is in its use of assertions without adequate substantiation. In other words, I heard what he was saying, but I didn't understand why his view was right or wrong, since opposing arguments were not always given. All-in-all I think that deSilva's and Carson and Moo's introductions work will in tandem.

Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns

This volume was disappointing. Dr Enns comes right out in the beginning of his book asserting that it isn't intended to be academic, but rather to aid and encourage students who were looking for direction. This might have been my greatest frustration with his book. Is it responsible teaching to make assertions about such important issues without including any challenging arguments? I don't find this approach helpful since it recruits adherents who don't know all of the information, and attempts to make those who disagree feel ridiculous. Inspiration and Incarnation is entirely one-sided, and demeaning of mainstream evangelical scholarship. For a book that boasted a desire to be helpful to the discouraged, I don't think that Dr. Enns took enough care not to discourage students who might deal with the evidence and come to different conclusions.

A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren

This book is both properly and improperly titled. What McLaren is propagating is not new, but it is different; so different that I wouldn't call it Christian at all. McLaren's view of Scripture is so nebulous that I don't think that he could really assert anything meaningful from the Biblical text (even to support his own world-view). He denies human depravity, the fall, the existence of hell, and even the exclusivity of Christ. In the end of the book he questions whether "Christianity" is even a helpful term. I think for McLaren it isn't. For the most part McLaren's book is old liberalism repackaged for a post-modern audience. I would rename this book "A Generous Unorthodoxy" or maybe as one scholar has, "A New Kind of Apostasy." (I know that this is a harsh review, and it is not my intention to mock Brian McLaren. I do think that this book is unorthodox and harmful, and for that reason I have used as plain of language as I could to call it as I see it)

Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck

I found this book to be insightful, though the title can be a little bit deceiving. The volume is indeed about the Emergent church, but it's about more than just that. DeYoung and Kluck did a great job of engaging the issues and controversies of contemporary and post-modern church life. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is looking for clarity about what church should and should not be, and about what Christians should and should not be about. I have to note though that I enjoyed DeYoung's chapters more than Kluck's. As the author's note in the introduction, Kluck's chapters are there to help people who think DeYoung is boring, get through the book. Kluck at times came off as a bit antagonistic to me, and I thought DeYoung's portions were interesting enough. Not to say that Kluck didn't contribute to the book, I think he did, but I related better to DeYoung.