The Merit of Scripture… paraphrasing
Honzo March 19th, 2008
I have had a terrible approach to the study of scripture since the great fracture of 2002 (my adventures at Central Christian College of the Bible). As I am reapporaching my faith in the wake of that experiance, I am looking for good ways to reapproach the Bible. One of my convictions is constructing a book by book Biblical theology. Another one that I am looking to start is paraphrasing the Bible, one chapter at a time. Basically, all it would/has entail[ed] is the translation of a passage of scripture into my own vernacular. I think this helps one see the curves of the narrative of the passage, but this paraphrase would be an excellent item to revisit the next time you go to approach the same text.
What do you all think? Does this idea sound fruitful? Do any of you utilize this approach in your study of the Word of God?
Christian Carnival CCXVI is up
Honzo March 19th, 2008
The latest Christian Carnival (CCXVI) is up over at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet. Check it out.
Christian Carnival CCXVI–At Crossroads Today
Here are some of the highlights:
John 18:1-4 - Getting Christological Perspective - A good post on the dangers of looking through scripture with a singular, forced perspective from Deep Bible Study. (Hint: the danger is heresy)
Why This Friday is so Good - As Good Friday approches, Brain Cramps for God looks 50 fifty reasons the Bible gives for Jesus’ coming to die. (We’ll forgive the use of Piper! 
)
A different view of Scripture by Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength - A “||” reading of scripture.
What’s Your Eucharistic Theology
Hank December 8th, 2007
Mine is…
| Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as Calvin
You are John Calvin. You seek to be faithful to Scripture, and to harmonize difficult sayings. You believe that in the Lord’s Supper those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet in a real way.
|
Wayne on Wayne on Gender
Honzo November 28th, 2007
Wayne Leman over at Complegalitarian looks at what Wayne Grudem said at the annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting last week.
Grudem on the State of the Gender Debate and the Way Forward
Grudem had this to say:
I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80’s and early 90’s I expected that this would probably be over in 10 years by the force of argument, by the use of the facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear Word of God, by the truth. I expected the entire church would be persuaded and that the battle for the purity of the church would be won. I still believe that will happen because Jesus Christ is building his church and purifying it so that he might present it to himself without spot or wrinkle. But, it is taking much longer than I expected.
Leman responded with:
The logical fallacy in Dr. Grudem’s statement, of course, is the assumption that his interpretation of the scriptures concerning the role of women in the home and church is the only possible biblical interpretation. He equates following his interpretation of the scriptures on gender issues with having a high view of scripture and its infallible truth.
A strong case could be made for the claim that the reason the gender debate is taking so long is that it truly is a matter of how Bible-believing Christians understand the scriptures about gender differently. It is not a matter of whether or not they believe the Bible and seek to have it transform our lives.
Some really good points are being brought up in the comments. I suggest heading over there and contributing to the discussion.
Monday Afternoon Links
Honzo October 22nd, 2007
Here are some good, bad, and discussion promoting links from around the ‘verse.
LCMS Invites Emerging Guru Dan Kimball from Slice of Laodicea by Ingrid
The human embodiment of Christian unity, Ingrid, freaks out because Kimball, who does not hate McLaren, is speaking in St. Louis at the Missouri Lutheran Church Snod. A small apocalypse ensues. I like that she envokes the Book of Concord in her argument for scripture alone. That and the guilt by association. (Bonus Link: See CRN.Info’s take on Ingrid’s post)
The Source of Submission from Challies Dot Com
Tim Challies argues for the location of original submission before the fall, not as the result of it. Some of his arguments hold some water, others are full of holes (4, 6, 7, 8, 10).
Does the Atheist Deny What the Theist Affirms? from Maverick Philosopher by William F. Vallicella
By far the best post of my morning reading. Vallicella describes how atheist’s arguments against the existance of god often do not address the world that theists put forth.
The “Jesus Didn’t Talk About It” Fallacy
Andrew Pflaum October 6th, 2007
It is interesting, and also very frustrating, to read how people justify actions. This seems to be the most posh argument that people use nowadays, “Jesus didn’t talk about it, so it must not be important.” The people who make this argument seem to use it as a magic wand to wave away people calling certain actions sin. This is the one of the most horrible arguments, ever. The people who use this argument the most are the people who say that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable behavior. However, when this argument is used to justify that behavior, what other behaviors are being justified at the same time? They also manage to create a rift in the Bible between what Jesus says and what everyone else says. Lastly this thinking degrades scripture to only mean what a person wants it to mean and fails to recognize the cohesiveness of all scripture.
People fail to realize the types of things Jesus never talked about. While they know the things he did not talk about that justified their own behavior, or behavior they believe is proper, they fail to see what else Jesus never mentions. As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. They justify this by saying that Jesus never calls it sin and the only other time it is mentioned is in Leviticus, which is not true, in a section called purity laws. Leviticus has been abrogated, therefore homosexuality is OK. What other behavior is justified by the same reasoning? There is an easy answer to this. It is also mentioned in the same chapter of Leviticus, however no one seems to want to justify this behavior. The behavior is incest. Does Jesus ever mention it? No. It is in the same chapters of Leviticus that homosexuality is mentioned that being Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. However it is unlikely you will find incest pride parades on weekends or find churches hiring ministers that are actively involved in a sexual relationship with their sister. Clearly most “higher thinking” Christians would object to incest but accept homosexuality. Usually their reasoning is how Jesus never talked about it.
This thinking also creates a rift in scripture between what Jesus says and what the rest of the Bible says. First what would the Bible say about itself here. 2 Timothy 3:16 says how ALL scripture is inspired by God. So anything in the Bible is the word of God. Many times in the Bible when it reads “scripture says” it is equated with “God says”. So scripture, no matter who it was written by, can be equated with being the word of God. Jesus himself claimed to be God, John 10:30. So, if scripture is the Word of God, everything that is written, and Jesus is God, one could say that when Paul writes in Romans 1 about men and women giving up natural relations it is something that Jesus would have been in full agreement with and would have said himself.
Lastly, people who only want to believe what Jesus said directly in the Gospels fail to realize the importance of all scripture and only wish to believe certain parts of scripture. This part may be the most troubling. This is where people can be misled and completely led away from God. One can make scripture say whatever they want it to say if it is not taken as a whole. While this debate could rage on with possibilities about who is actually being misled and who is doing the misleading, once again the example should be taken from scripture to when scripture can be used to try and lead people astray. In Matthew 4 Jesus is tempted by the Devil himself. First Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread. Jesus answered with scripture saying “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” Deuteronomy 8:3. Next Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tells Jesus to throw himself off telling him, as Psalm 91:11-12 says, that Angels will protect him. Here Satan is making an argument from scripture. Odd how the Devil is saying, “See what scripture says.” It says this is good. Act in this way. Its OK. God wants you to. Jesus, knowing the totality of scripture, responds with scripture saying “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test,’” Deuteronomy 6:16. Lastly Jesus is tempted to worship Satan and once again Jesus uses scripture and says “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only,’” Deuteronomy 6:13. Once again Jesus fends off temptation with scripture. The most intriguing part of this passage is when Satan uses scripture as a justification for wrong action. However Jesus, knowing all scripture, was able to know how to correctly behave. He knew what every passage meant and knew how it all worked together. So when he was tempted by a bad argument based in the word of God, he was able to do what was right. All of scripture in its totality speaks on how one should act, not just a small portion.
The “Jesus never said it” fallacy is a mere justification for sin. It justifies wrong actions with a thin veil that appears to be from God. It makes most scripture to be nothing more than the words of man. It denies that all scripture is from God. It perverts scripture to be whatever one wants it to be instead of being totally the inspired word of God which is to show everyone who God is and what He requires.
Too much of one, not enough of Another
Honzo September 13th, 2007
A while ago, the BBB had a poll running on headship and submission. Right now they are unpacking the poll and the issues surrounding the headship/submission issues. See part 1 and part 2. I really liked what Wyane had to say in the following quote. I think it is good to reflect how we view our Christianity especially in what parts were emphasize over other parts.
Better Bibles Blog :: head and submission poll results - post #3
From my own point of view, not enough biblical teaching has occurred on what it means for Christians to mutually submit to each other in comparison with how much teaching there has been on wives submitting to their husbands. The larger amount of teaching devoted to wives submitting to their husbands does not align with the fact that the first relationship Paul addresses in this section on submission is that of Christians to each other. That relationship is explicitly stated in Greek. It seems to me that other relationships of submission flow out of the teaching that mutual submission is God’s design for his children. I think that much of scripture tells us, in one way or another, how to submit to each other, and such submission would define what a wife’s submission to her husband should look like. Mutual submission surely involves love (John 13:35), honor, respect, deference, being like-minded, and being one in spirit (Phil. 2:2).
After I read that, I read his conclusions on chapter 5 of Ephesians:
So what does it mean for a man to be the head of his wife? Here is what the Bible explicitly says about this matter. In the Ephesians (chapter 5) context of teaching about the husband as head of his wife, the husband head is to love his wife. The husband head is to love his wife sacrificially, “giving himself for her” as Christ gave himself (died) for the church. As far as I know, this is all that the Bible explicitly teaches about what the husband head does for his wife. Everything else which is said on the matter is, I suggest, application or theological extrapolation. Is the husband to lead his wife? Perhaps, but the Bible does not explicitly say so. Does he have authority over her? Perhaps, but the Bible does not explicitly say so, other than when it refers to authority of one kind, mentioned in one passage which we will discuss below, concerning the statement “A husband has authority over his wife”. Is the husband a priest for his wife? The Bible does not teach this. Does a husband mediate between his wife and God. The Bible does not teach this either.
Update The Better Bibles Blog has now posted their fourth post in the series: head and submission poll results - post #4. The post sums up my thoughts on the subject quite well. Wayne looks at the difference between ὑποτασσω (a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden) in Eph 5:21-22 and Rom. 13:1 and contrasts it with ἐξουσιάζω (to have power or authority, use power) in such places as 1 Cor. 7:4.
Wayne then goes on to look at the Genesis account and comes to much the same conclusions that Dave and I did a while back.