Category Archives: Scripture

Carpe diem, preacherdude!

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s actually the title of a Dan Phillips post over at Pyromaniacs that begins with this:

“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat in an assembly and thought this, in the past 35+ years since my conversion: Dude, this critical moment, with these assembled people, on this your one shot — and you do THAT with it?” (Emphasis mine)

Dan Phillip’s blog focused on the Apostle Paul’s charge to young Timothy. . .

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom. . . 

. . .PREACH THE WORD!”

(2 Tim 4:1-2a)

. . .and the lack of the Word in much of today’s preaching.

I had a similar moment this last Sunday morning visiting a small church in my neighborhood. The preacher however, didn’t use irrelevant humor, just have a chat, tell stories, or “weave a blurry tapestry of vague, gauzy religious sentiments”, as described in Dan’s blog. In fact he delivered a sermon based solely on scripture, a genuine exposition (rare these days) of a passage in Colossians.

My “you did WHAT” moment came near the very end of the service. After a soundly scriptural sermon, after telling us that God sent His Son to die for our sins, the preacher told us that all we need to do is “fall in love and say I Do”. At the most critical moment of the morning service, an invitation to receive come to Christ, the preacher told “these assembled people” that ALL they need to do is “. . .fall in love and say “I DO”?

I wasn’t just sad that I had just heard a lie, I just sat there, absolutely crushed. It wasn’t my place to address the Pastor, so all I could do was pick my heart up off the carpet and leave.

But this post isn’t about what was wrong with the preacher’s invitation – it’s about the solemn charge to “PREACH THE WORD!”. That’ the charge to pastors, preachers, teachers, and ordinary folks like you and me, even here in Blogland. In other words, if it’s NOT the revealed written Word, or if it’s not directly supported by the revealed written word, don’t go there!

I’m not bashing opinions here – opinions are great and they’re the meat some really great discussions. But they don’t amount to lot to God, in fact I remember a couple of passages that say man’s wisdom is pretty much foolishness to God.

Those of us who would dare call ourselves ‘teachers’ of sorts, especially if there is a genuine gifting to teach, had best heed the charge to “PREACH THE WORD!”, for we will be judged even more severely. We need to be about what has been written and revealed in scripture, not personal opinion, or fanciful ideas unsupportable by what has already been written.

We are to interpret and teach Scripture in the immediate and larger contexts in which it was written, not develop and ‘share’ our own ‘”new/fresh insights” (vain imaginings) that serve no practical purpose other than to build “self-exalting structures”. In fact, we are be about the business of “casting down everything that would exalt itself above the knowledge of God” (1 Cor 10:5).

Does what I say/write/teach point people to me and my ‘coolness’ or to Christ and His Word. If it’s the former I need to shut up and shut down this blog.

As Dan Phillips fitly concluded in his post:

“Once again: it is a crucial moment. Vast ages of eternity hold their breath.

What do you do with it?

Preacherdude: best to ask yourself that question now, before it is asked of you on that Day.”

Carpe Diem!

Worshiping the Human Mind

Posted by Dan C. on

In an excellent interview between John MacArthur and Phil Johnson here we find this from Dr. MacArthur:

“Modernism was a bad philosophy. Post-modernism is another bad philosophy. But in both cases, they assault the Scripture. Modernism made reason, human reason, the king. Reason was supreme in modernism. Thomas Payne, The Age of Reason, The Enlightenment, all of those things, the Renaissance. Out of that came the worship of the human mind and the mind trumps God. Now mystery trumps the Bible. The human mind trumps the Bible in modernism, mystery trumps the Bible in post-modernism. It is at the foundation an unwillingness to accept the clear teaching of Scripture.” (Online source) (Emphasis mine.)

The interview was about the dangers of the Emergent church, but contains a valuable warning for normal Bible-believing evangelicals as well. While we might not have succumbed to the “certainty of uncertainty” or embraced Emergentville’s  New Age mysticism (now termed New Spirituality), we still have “mental problems”. Possible symptoms:

  • Spending more time in “what does this verse mean to me” private opinion sessions than we do actually studying the Bible for what it says.
  • Assuming that every little whisper in our heads is The Holy Spirit speaking to us, because as believers “we have the mind of Christ”.
  • Searching for ‘deeper’ meanings in Scripture that are not found on clearly its pages, or in its context.
  • Inventing, out of our imaginations, allegories, metaphors, and fanciful sounding teachings that tickle itching ears but have absolutely no value for Christian growth and maturity.

This a very short list of a few ways we “worship” our own minds. You might think that too strong a word, or even completely uncalled for. I don’t. I’ve been there and back – all of the above. What, if not worshiping our minds, is it?

And that my friends, simply speaking, is Idolatry.

Think about it. . .

"Strawmanicus Maximus"

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s a term I came across researching the issue of Sola Scriptura, a Christian doctrine restored to the church as a result of the Protestant Reformation. It appeared in this article by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, in which he summarized some of the main points made during a debate with the Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid. The straw men presented here are typically seen an most debates between Protestant and Catholic apologists.

Straw Man Number One: Misrepresent the issue(s). In this case we are talking about Patrick Madred misrepresenting what Sola Scriptura actually means.

Straw Man Number Two: Misrepresent the opponent’s point/argument. In this case Patrick Madrid misrepresents James White’s position concerning 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and the passage’s presentation of a case for Sola Scriptura.

Following is a direct excerpt that appeared in the beginning of the above referenced article (and the actual debate), in which Dr. White explains exactly what Sola Scriptura does not mean and what it does mean.

What the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

This explanation by Dr. White of what Sola Scriptura does not mean was quite useful to this blogger because it told me why conversations I have had and/or observed seemed to go in endless circles. Opposing parties in the debate often argue from different perspectives. I hope you find this information useful.

As for SM#2 and 2 Timothy 3:16-18, well, that’s another blog post.

Rightly Interpreting Scripture

Posted by Dan C. on

Is there a right way and a wrong way to interpret Scripture? You bet there is! The following was adapted from a larger article here. I’ve included material from the referenced article that addresses interpretive principles most needed in a ‘Christian’ culture that focuses on ‘What this verse means to ME”, more than simply “What does it MEAN”, or “What is God saying?” I hope it is helpful.

Methodology

The word “method” comes from the Greek word methodos, which literally means “a way or path of transit.” Methodology in Bible study is therefore concerned with “the proper path to be taken in order to arrive at Scriptural truth.” This clearly implies that improper paths can be taken.

Improper methodology in interpreting Scripture is nothing new. Even in New Testament times, the apostle Peter warned that there are teachings in the inspired writings of Paul “which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16, insert added).

A Foundational Truth: God Created Language for a Purpose

God sovereignly chose to use human language as a medium of revelational communication. If the primary purpose of God’s originating of language was to make it possible for Him to communicate with human beings, as well as to enable human beings to communicate with each another, then it must follow that He would generally use language and expect man to use it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. This view of language is a prerequisite to understanding not only God’s spoken word but His written Word (Scripture) as well.

Seeking the Author’s Intended Meaning

Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author’s intended meaning (the only true meaning).

  • One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers.
  • Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers.

Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).

Only by objective methodology can we bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the biblical writers.
Indeed, our method of interpreting Scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning a statement had for the author and the first hearers or readers.

The Importance of Context

Seeking the biblical author’s intended meaning necessitates interpreting Bible verses in context.

  • Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
  • No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel’s “Messiah” by listening to a few short notes.
  • The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.

In interpreting Scripture, there is both an immediate context and a broader context.

  • The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
  • The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
    • The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
    • We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
    • Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
    • The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture

Let Scripture Explain Scripture

Interpret the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament. God gave revelation to humankind progressively throughout Old and New Testament times. In view of this, a key interpretive principle is that one should always interpret the Old Testament in view of the greater light of the New Testament.

Where a passage is unclear, find other scripture with the same topic and use what is clear to interpret what is unclear. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Dependence on the Holy Spirit

Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit’s illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11).

  • It is the Holy Spirit’s work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.
  • The Holy Spirit, as the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13), guides us so that “we may understand what God has freely given us” (1 Corinthians 2:12).
  • This aspect of the Holy Spirit’s ministry operates within the sphere of man’s rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (cf. Genesis 2-3). Illumination comes to the ‘minds’ of God’s people – not to some nonrational faculty like our ’emotions’ or our ‘feelings’ [like a ‘burning in the bosom’].

The ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth. In other words, “the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency.”

It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself.The Holy Spirit makes men “wise up to what is written, not beyond it.” Indeed, “the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture.”