Well, I've gotten off to a good start with the new school year. I found out what I was reading at the beginning of the summer, and I finished all but two books for one class, and one for the other (I read 6 in all this summer). I'm only a few weeks in, and I have one of those two finished, and the other nearly finished. Then for the other class I'll just read a little at a time through the semester. But anyway, things are going well.
Amy recently got a promotion at work. She's no longer in dining services. She is now working in the Provosts office. Her title is "Administrative Assistant to the Associate VP of Academic Administration." It goes without saying, she's now making almost three times as much as me when you include her benefits package. But my job is nice. I get to spend a lot of time reading. I don't think I would survive this load without a job where I could study while I'm at work like this.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Summer Work
I've been working a lot so far this summer. Trying to get in more than 40 hours when I can. I've written two articles to be published in an Old Testament Survey Study Guide. I've got my doubts about their being good enough, but we'll see.
I've tried to spend good amounts of time with my family as well. We went on a trip to San Antonio, and Amy and I got to spend a night in a McKinney bed and breakfast while the kids stayed at her brother's. It was nice to have that night alone for our 7th anniversary.
That's right. Amy and I have been married 7 years. It has gone by so fast. I can't believe we already have a child that is almost three. It seems like our lives are getting away with us, and we have barely even got started. We've been out of college and married for 7 years, and I'm still in school working on yet another Master's degree, working a job that just doesn't get it done well enough, so that she is forced back into the workplace--away from our kids where she really wants to be.
The Lord has a plan for all of this. I'm not sure what it is yet, but He will bring something good out of it.
I've tried to spend good amounts of time with my family as well. We went on a trip to San Antonio, and Amy and I got to spend a night in a McKinney bed and breakfast while the kids stayed at her brother's. It was nice to have that night alone for our 7th anniversary.
That's right. Amy and I have been married 7 years. It has gone by so fast. I can't believe we already have a child that is almost three. It seems like our lives are getting away with us, and we have barely even got started. We've been out of college and married for 7 years, and I'm still in school working on yet another Master's degree, working a job that just doesn't get it done well enough, so that she is forced back into the workplace--away from our kids where she really wants to be.
The Lord has a plan for all of this. I'm not sure what it is yet, but He will bring something good out of it.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
End of Semester Blues
I'm having a hard time doing anything. It's the end of the semester. I really don't have a lot to do, but I just don't feel like doing anything. I have been so bogged down all semester long that I feel very tired and I don't want to do the little that I have left.
Prayer:
"Oh Lord, help me. I'm weak and frail. I suffer from evil desires and indifference of feeling. Fill my heart with passion for you, your truth, your holiness, and your ways. Guide my steps as my spirit desires what my flesh shuns. Help me to be obedient, and passionate for your name, and your glory, as it is exhibited in my life.
Prayer:
"Oh Lord, help me. I'm weak and frail. I suffer from evil desires and indifference of feeling. Fill my heart with passion for you, your truth, your holiness, and your ways. Guide my steps as my spirit desires what my flesh shuns. Help me to be obedient, and passionate for your name, and your glory, as it is exhibited in my life.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Why Did Jesus Suffer?
I preached at my home church. Click on the title to hear.
It was my first time using power point in a sermon, and it really made things difficult for me. I had way too much information on the power point and it really distracted from my delivery. Other than that, I'm happy with my content.
It was my first time using power point in a sermon, and it really made things difficult for me. I had way too much information on the power point and it really distracted from my delivery. Other than that, I'm happy with my content.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Gospel in Six Minutes
After 2 decades of walking with Jesus, I still need the Gospel--I'm still a sinner in need of grace.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
What is Sin? And What It Isn't?
If anyone at all is reading this blog, then you know that I have interacted with some of the discussion on a blog by a feminist theology student. She is self professedly influenced by Mary Daly, a radical feminist at Boston College. Mary Daly has her own ideas about what "sin" is. Here is a quote from the New Yorker, from February 1996, that shows what she thinks that word means:
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb
These make up the word translated sin in the New Testament in its noun and verb forms.
4. Now, how does Hebrew use the word. For Hebrew the lexical information will be abbreviated for space and time considerations. I will not be looking up all the cognate uses. This data will come from the free version of BDB (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon):
חטּאת / חטּאה
chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'th
BDB Definition:
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness
Part of Speech: noun feminine
חטא
châṭâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to miss
1a2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty
1a3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to bear loss
1b2) to make a sin-offering
1b3) to purify from sin
1b4) to purify from uncleanness
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to miss the mark
1c2) to induce to sin, cause to sin
1c3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way
1d2) to purify oneself from uncleanness
Part of Speech: verb
אשׁמה
'ashmâh
BDB Definition:
1) guiltiness, guilt, offense, sin, wrong-doing
1a) doing wrong, committing a trespass or offense
1b) becoming guilty, guilt
1c) bringing a guilt-offering
Part of Speech: noun feminine
שׁגה
shâgâh
BDB Definition:
1) to go astray, stray, err
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to err, stray
1a2) to swerve, meander, reel, roll, be intoxicated, err (in drunkenness)
1a3) to go astray (morally)
1a4) to commit sin of ignorance or inadvertence, err (ignorantly)
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to lead astray
1b2) to lead astray, mislead (mentally)
1b3) to lead astray (morally)
These first two of these are the typical words used when the English translations use the word sin. The other two were a used much less frequently where we find the word sin. There may be others, and this is not the place for comprehensiveness. I'm just trying to demonstrate a point. Even if the "Indo-European root 'es-,'"does mean "to be" surely the English translators aren't stupid enough to think that's what was meant when they were reading the original languages.
The fact is, encouraging people to have the "Courage to Sin" is exactly what the last of the Hebrew definitions that I gave implies--to lead astray (morally)." Which makes me think of what Jesus said about those who lead others astray: Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
I hope that this encourages anyone reading this to pray for Ms. Daly and anyone whose ear she has captivated. Deconstructing the definition of a word for the promotion of an anti-biblical agenda, is a dangerous thing. Let us pray that their eyes would be opened to see the light of the gospel of truth.
EVER since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a Radical Feminist Pirate and cultivating the Courage to Sin. The word "sin" is derived from the Indo-European root "es-," meaning "to be." When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, "to be" in the fullest sense is "to sin."Now it is obvious that I disagree. I of course hold to what would be a "traditional" view of the definition of sin; however, let's take a look at what she has to say, and try to understand her method of hermeneutics, and see if this is anything close to what the Bible means when it uses the term "sin."
- First of all, let's look at her use of etymology: She says that the word "sin" comes from the "Indo-European root 'es-,' meaning 'be.'" Well, this just may be true. I've never studied Indo-European language roots. So I grant that this is quite possible. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The Bible wasn't written in Indo-European, or English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. Why in the world, would we want to know about the origins of words used in a translation, when they have nothing at all to do with the original languages to which they refer. This is merely the fallacy of etymology at work. Don't be fooled.
- Second, is it that usage determines the meaning of a word in a statement. Is it the etymology of a word? No one seriously thinks this is true. The meaning of words is determined by their usage in sentences. When I say, "the milk in the refrigerator is 'expired,'" do I intend the meaning of the term expired that is derived from its etymology--that it 'breathed out?'" Of course not, I mean it the way all native English speakers would understand it. The milk has gone bad and needs to be thrown out before it stinks. Which is what we should do with interpretations that are obviously violation of the intention of the author. Either this is willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what at text is saying, and undermines the ethical requirements of the social contract of human language, or it is an extremely naive attempt at scholarship.
- Third what does the Greek word for "sin" mean? While, more extensive documentation could be done, I will use Thayer's Greek Definitions, simply because I have it in electronic form on a free bible software program.
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb
These make up the word translated sin in the New Testament in its noun and verb forms.
4. Now, how does Hebrew use the word. For Hebrew the lexical information will be abbreviated for space and time considerations. I will not be looking up all the cognate uses. This data will come from the free version of BDB (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon):
חטּאת / חטּאה
chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'th
BDB Definition:
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness
Part of Speech: noun feminine
חטא
châṭâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to miss
1a2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty
1a3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to bear loss
1b2) to make a sin-offering
1b3) to purify from sin
1b4) to purify from uncleanness
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to miss the mark
1c2) to induce to sin, cause to sin
1c3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way
1d2) to purify oneself from uncleanness
Part of Speech: verb
אשׁמה
'ashmâh
BDB Definition:
1) guiltiness, guilt, offense, sin, wrong-doing
1a) doing wrong, committing a trespass or offense
1b) becoming guilty, guilt
1c) bringing a guilt-offering
Part of Speech: noun feminine
שׁגה
shâgâh
BDB Definition:
1) to go astray, stray, err
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to err, stray
1a2) to swerve, meander, reel, roll, be intoxicated, err (in drunkenness)
1a3) to go astray (morally)
1a4) to commit sin of ignorance or inadvertence, err (ignorantly)
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to lead astray
1b2) to lead astray, mislead (mentally)
1b3) to lead astray (morally)
These first two of these are the typical words used when the English translations use the word sin. The other two were a used much less frequently where we find the word sin. There may be others, and this is not the place for comprehensiveness. I'm just trying to demonstrate a point. Even if the "Indo-European root 'es-,'"does mean "to be" surely the English translators aren't stupid enough to think that's what was meant when they were reading the original languages.
The fact is, encouraging people to have the "Courage to Sin" is exactly what the last of the Hebrew definitions that I gave implies--to lead astray (morally)." Which makes me think of what Jesus said about those who lead others astray: Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
I hope that this encourages anyone reading this to pray for Ms. Daly and anyone whose ear she has captivated. Deconstructing the definition of a word for the promotion of an anti-biblical agenda, is a dangerous thing. Let us pray that their eyes would be opened to see the light of the gospel of truth.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Oops!
I've recently found that I need to be a little more careful on what I post. I've only been doing this for a little over a month, so I'm still learning about the "blogosphere." I recently found that it is not polite to post someone else's public words without asking them first. I had already known from reading other people's blogs that it was very problematic to post the content of private emails without permission. I didn't realize that it could also be offensive to post content that was already publicly accessible. I apologize to MasonDixon for posting the interchange from the last blog that I did, and in the future, anything more than a short quote will appear as a link rather than in the primary text. I didn't even know that anyone anyone read my blog!
Monday, January 15, 2007
Are Liberals Really More Tolerant Than Conservatives?
- It has been interesting to watch that feminist blog that I had mentioned earlier. The author of the blog has been very nice to me in allowing me to dialogue with those on her page. And others have been equally polite. But just recently I have been blasted by one poster who basically told me to "buzz off." Click the title to link to the full conversation.
I had originally posted the conversation here. But since there was concern over me posting it without MasonDixon's permission, I decided to remove it, and you can just click the title of this entry to see for yourself.
Like I said, an interesting interchange. Quite ironic. I'm being told that I have an opinion that is not open to being challenged so I should buzz off, because he doesn't want to hear my opinion. I'm glad that I saw the irony in this situation or it might have angered me. Instead, I had a little fun with it.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Reflections on Sin and Grace
Reading Calvin's Institutes has been helpful for my own soul. I have found him to be very pastoral, and everything is connected to how it is used in the encouragement of our faith.
I am an unworthy sinner. I do not deserve God's gracious favor. I deserve to be cast into eternal torment this moment. I do not deserve even the grace that would sustain me through the writing of this post. By God's righteous justice, I should have been stricken dead long ago, and I should have been suffering the fires of Hell for the past 28 years.
That is enough to begin rejoicing. I'm not in Hell right now. God has been immeasurably kind to me in spite of my callous rebellion against His holiness. For 28 long years I have provoked His wrath against me. I have treated His kindness as if it were license to mock Him. I have lied, cheated, stolen, hated, and I have been idolatrous. I can find no reason for God to think me worthy of any of his kindness. Yet He has been kind to me.
He has given me every breath that I breath. He has given me every bit of nourishment that I have ever used to sustain my body. He has placed me in a country where the hostility toward His people is mild. He has given innumerable opportunities to hear His Gospel proclaimed--week after week--year after year--decade after decade. He has given me an inclination to desire to please Him--albeit weak and tainted. He has given me the opportunity to study His Word and His truth at an intensely deep level--though I am uncertain about how much it has changed me--stubborn as I am.
I have never suffered any kind of abuse that is common to many today. I have never gone hungry. Though I have been poor throughout my adult life, I have never gone without the ability to pay my bills--a grace that I certainly do not deserve.
God is good, and He has been good to me. Though I continue to struggle, fail, and despair--I have not lost hope. He has sustained a seed that He planted in me--however small the fruit--it is still fruit.
Yet I do not deny what I stated above: that certain interruptions of faith occasionally occur, according as its weakness is violently buffeted hither and thither; so in the thick darkness of temptations its light is snuffed out. Yet whatever happens, it ceases not its earnest quest for God. --John Calvin. III.II.24
I am an unworthy sinner. I do not deserve God's gracious favor. I deserve to be cast into eternal torment this moment. I do not deserve even the grace that would sustain me through the writing of this post. By God's righteous justice, I should have been stricken dead long ago, and I should have been suffering the fires of Hell for the past 28 years.
That is enough to begin rejoicing. I'm not in Hell right now. God has been immeasurably kind to me in spite of my callous rebellion against His holiness. For 28 long years I have provoked His wrath against me. I have treated His kindness as if it were license to mock Him. I have lied, cheated, stolen, hated, and I have been idolatrous. I can find no reason for God to think me worthy of any of his kindness. Yet He has been kind to me.
He has given me every breath that I breath. He has given me every bit of nourishment that I have ever used to sustain my body. He has placed me in a country where the hostility toward His people is mild. He has given innumerable opportunities to hear His Gospel proclaimed--week after week--year after year--decade after decade. He has given me an inclination to desire to please Him--albeit weak and tainted. He has given me the opportunity to study His Word and His truth at an intensely deep level--though I am uncertain about how much it has changed me--stubborn as I am.
I have never suffered any kind of abuse that is common to many today. I have never gone hungry. Though I have been poor throughout my adult life, I have never gone without the ability to pay my bills--a grace that I certainly do not deserve.
God is good, and He has been good to me. Though I continue to struggle, fail, and despair--I have not lost hope. He has sustained a seed that He planted in me--however small the fruit--it is still fruit.
Yet I do not deny what I stated above: that certain interruptions of faith occasionally occur, according as its weakness is violently buffeted hither and thither; so in the thick darkness of temptations its light is snuffed out. Yet whatever happens, it ceases not its earnest quest for God. --John Calvin. III.II.24
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
My Comments on a Feminist Theology Student's Blog
Here are my comments from the blog that I had mentioned before. I am continuing in dialog, and if you would like to see the full conversation you can follow the link that is provided.
I read this post, and found it very interesting. I could not resist commenting. But first let me just come out and admit my perspective. I'm one of those who you might call a fundamentalist. Actually there is quite a spectrum even within this label, and I'm probably toward the middle of the spectrum of those willing to take the name. I'm currently working on a Master of Theology, and read Tillich this semester. What you had to say sounded much like him. I really only have one question: What place does the Bible hold in what you call Christianity?Jerad
Just trying to engage in dialog,
JFile
jfile said...You said, "Bible is foundational; it is our primary text and a cornerstone of our tradition" If I'm not reading into what you said, I think this reveals something about where we would differ.
jfile said...
For you the Bible is foundational--I assume this means that it is a starting place. It is what we build on. I differ here. I would say that the Bible "defines" what it is to be Christian. It is not only where we must begin, but it is where we live and where we end. You say that it is our "primary" text--a primary text might just be the texts which come from the beginning of the movement. Written by people who were involved in its founding. Rather than primary, I believe that the Bible is our "authoritative text." It has the right to make demands on us, if we are to call ourselves Christians.
Also, you said that it is "a" cornerstone of our tradition. (I guess that may depend on how one uses the term cornerstone.)I don't see how there can be any other cornerstone but the one that was laid by the apostles and the prophets and ultimately by Jesus Himself.
I don't think that our differences are because you are using philosophical language either. They are much deeper than etymology or nomenclature. Our differences hinge not on the language we use but on the epistemology we employ and the way we see the nature of ultimate reality.I wouldn't claim to have it all figured out. I recognize that I have my own presuppositions--just as you have yours. No one comes to the text of scripture objectively. We all read it through the lenses of tradition. I concede that. We will always see things differently, but there are certain presuppositions that can help or hurt a person's understanding. Does a person come to the text to receive or to critique? Do we come to the text willing to accept it, or do we come with the presupposition that is hostile? Do we think that the Bible's message is clear enough so that people have fairly well understood it throughout the years, or is it only since the enlightenment that people have been able to understand it correctly, or is it something else altogether?
jfile said...
And then there is the philosophical presupposition: Is there objective truth that exists outside of us? In what way does our perception of the world match its ontological reality, and does the universe even have an ontological reality?
The answers to these questions are the presuppositions that determine our interpretation of Scripture.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think that there really is such a thing as an objective truth that is true for everyone. I may be delusional, but I think that I'm at least reasonably consistent, and that my understanding of things is at least coherent.Please forgive me for coming across as if it is my intellectual understanding of things that is superior. I cannot even begin to make that claim.
jfile said...
It has nothing to do with me at all. I am not the one who is consistent and coherent--truth, particularly Christian truth, is.
If I may, I have another question to provoke further discussion if you are willing: How are we to get our data that makes up the picture of who Jesus is? Where does it come from?I have to admit that I'm no scholar of Wesley. I'm much more comfortable with Calvin and Edwards.
jfile said...
I would have to agree that we do know God in some sense through reason and tradition, but these other means I would understand to be inferior to Scripture. Sin (the traditional definition) clouds our minds so that we do not understand rightly through reason, tradition has also often been simply wrong (the most indisputable example of this would be on the church's response to slavery in the early American experience). And experience is hardly an adequate means to know what the ultimate truths are. Experience is so varied, and human beings are so "finite" and frail that we are poor interpreters of it without aid of Scripture.
I admit my presupposition here. I accept that the Bible "is" God's revelation to man. It does not merely testify to it, nor does it merely contain it, but it is God's very word breathed out by His Spirit. I presuppose this because it seems to be the Bible's own estimation of itself. Paul said that all Scripture is God breathed. Peter said that Scripture was written as the spirit moved men to write. This is only a small sample, but if it is true, then it should be true of the whole.
With this presupposition, I would say that reason, tradition, and experience must all be governed by Scripture.tls,
jfile said...
Then do you admit in the above statement: "I don't believe that God has ever given direct revelation to humanity." That your view is in conflict with the Bible's statements about itself? 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; et al.
Are you not saying that the Bible is wrong in its own estimation of itself? If that is the case, why should a person trust it in any respect?
The fact that there is a language barrier to the original languages is not an insurmountable hurtle. It may be a little more work, but it is possible to know what it says just as well as you can understand the words that I am typing.
Also, when you say that you don't believe that God has ever given direct revelation to humanity, do you mean in a written form, or do you mean in any form at all. Even Schliermacher speaks of an immediate experience of revelation when one realizes his feeling of absolute dependence. In my estimation this is not sufficient, but if even that is excluded--then God has not spoken at all, and we are left with merely man's reflections on a God that might or might not even exist. If God has not revealed himself then he is unknowable--so we might as well give up on it all because it is pointless anyway.tls
"The Bible was written by pre-modern communities of faith who did not yet have a developed understanding of epistemology."
Interpretation: The people who wrote the Bible were not that intelligent.
Then why should we care what they say?
"BECAUSE it is an honest account of particular communities' of faith understanding of and relationship with God."
Interpretation: The people who wrote the Bible were delusional.
Again, this really inspires my confidence.
"I am claiming that it is evidence of the interpreted nature of Scripture and all human experience."
Interpretation: If something has to be interpreted then we really cannot truly understand it.
On this basis all communication breaks down. Maybe this is because we disagree about what interpretation is. For me, interpretation is trying to understand what a text means. It seems that for you interpretation is to find what a text really means, because what it appears to be saying on the surface cannot possibly be what it actually means because that perceived meaning is in conflict with your world view.
Yes. All human language is interpreted, but it is nonsense to say that on that basis we cannot truly understand one another. You, yourself are working on the assumption that the words that you write make sense, and you have something that you intend to say. You would probably be quite offended if I treated your words the same way that most liberal scholarship takes the Bible. I know I'm going against the intellectual tide to say that a texts true meaning is based in what the author intended to communicate--but honestly we all know this is true. It cannot be lived out practically to treat language with such skepticism.
"Where I differ from Schliermacher is in understanding this affective experience as universal, that is the same from person to person, context to context."
This I can agree with--that is, our experiences differ from context to context. Schliermacher was unjustified in making this assumption. However, we do live on the same planet. There is some kind of objective reality that this experience testifies to; however varied our perceptions may be. I would argue that if God exists at all then God must have some objective essential nature.
Of course I know this goes against the existentialist hesitancy to say anything that predicates God for fear of objectifying Him. This whole concept destroys any idea that anything can actually be known about God.
"YES...but isn't that what faith is all about? How little is one's faith in God that they need a complete instruction book, without any ambiguity or complexity?" And might I add, without any objective reality.
That's not faith--at least not in the Biblical sense. Faith in the Biblical sense has an object. The Bible never asks anyone to make a leap of faith against all possible reason. The evidence for this is that it actually gives reasons to believe. Of course there is ambiguity and complexity, but there is also something real. Otherwise the whole matter of faith is just soap bubbles.
"The Bible is not to be read for content alone."
This is true as well. I'm sure that is why God revealed it in so many different genres. I'm not particularly a proponent of Barth, but I think he is right when he speaks of speech-acts. The Bible is not "just" revealing propositional statements--it is doing something. It is commanding, it is encouraging, it is teaching, it is rebuking, it is nourishing, it is penetrating, and it is breathing life into those who read it and have their ears open to hear what it says.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
The Necessity of the Whole Bible
I was browsing through some of the other blogs with the same interests as I have, and found one by a student in Massachusetts who openly holds to feminist theology. I read her most recent post, and commented to her with one question: What role does the Bible play in what you call Christianity?
You may find her blog at http://marydaly.blogspot.com/.
In this article she explained her view of what Christianity is, and she used much language that you might hear in evangelical circles. However, this language had been redefined to fit her purposes. Is this a legitimate way to claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? The only access that we have today to any historical knowledge of who Jesus is, is through the Bible. One might be tempted to look only to the gospels to find this picture. However, this is assuming that there is some contradiction between the gospels and the epistles--or the rest of the Bible for that matter.
And what historical arrogance we display when we think that we can judge who Jesus was better than those who knew him, and who knew his followers at the time that he walked this earth!
My point is this, if we do not agree with those who first called Christians about essential questions such as the nature of God, Sin, Humanity, and Reality, we have no business calling ourselves by the same name as them.
The theology that I read on that post is really merely giving new application to what Freidrich Schleirmacher began a few centuries ago--which gave birth to classical liberalism. In an attempt to make Christianity more reasonable to modern people, Schleirmacher rejected the historic Christian message and redefined his terms. Classic liberalism, in an attempt to then get something out of the Bible that they could accept redefined Jesus in to their own image. In a paraphrase, as Albert Switzer said all liberalism did was to look down into the well of history looking for Jesus, but all they saw was their own reflection looking back. This is the definition of idolatry--making God in man's image.
You may find her blog at http://marydaly.blogspot.com/.
In this article she explained her view of what Christianity is, and she used much language that you might hear in evangelical circles. However, this language had been redefined to fit her purposes. Is this a legitimate way to claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? The only access that we have today to any historical knowledge of who Jesus is, is through the Bible. One might be tempted to look only to the gospels to find this picture. However, this is assuming that there is some contradiction between the gospels and the epistles--or the rest of the Bible for that matter.
And what historical arrogance we display when we think that we can judge who Jesus was better than those who knew him, and who knew his followers at the time that he walked this earth!
My point is this, if we do not agree with those who first called Christians about essential questions such as the nature of God, Sin, Humanity, and Reality, we have no business calling ourselves by the same name as them.
The theology that I read on that post is really merely giving new application to what Freidrich Schleirmacher began a few centuries ago--which gave birth to classical liberalism. In an attempt to make Christianity more reasonable to modern people, Schleirmacher rejected the historic Christian message and redefined his terms. Classic liberalism, in an attempt to then get something out of the Bible that they could accept redefined Jesus in to their own image. In a paraphrase, as Albert Switzer said all liberalism did was to look down into the well of history looking for Jesus, but all they saw was their own reflection looking back. This is the definition of idolatry--making God in man's image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)