On Facebook, I follow a lot of folks from in and around the Reformed tradition. Some of them have stepped into the waters Anglicanism, following the issues around Federal Vision and whatnot. Recently, I saw the following on a Facebook post, " A good way to test whether your worship music is keeping the 5th commandment: would your grandpa know any of it?"
Now, I understand the argument that our worship music, and the rest of our worship, should be appropriate. What I don't get is the disdain for and ridicule of development and innovation. What seems to be advocated here is a chronological standard on music. If it isn't music (lyrics are not distinguished - so the poster must include tune, instrumentation, etc.) your grandpa would know then you are in danger of violating the 5th commandment.
Was the canon of music sealed along with that of Scripture? If so, where is the sheet music? I know no one who would suggest such a thing. There are those who insist that the Psalms are the only songs worthy of singing in public worship. But then these same individuals typically use music to accompany the Psalms that was written in the 16th and 17th centuries. How did this music get the "grandpa" stamp of approval?
As an aside - those who insist on singing the Psalms don't sing them as found in the Old Covenant text, but as reworded and rethought with references to the church and Christ.
Indeed, how does anything get the "grandpa" seal of approval? One quick glance at history will show the elders typically resist any change or innovation to the status quo.
Imagine if we applied this same 5th commandment test to a host of other issues. How about agriculture? If we applied this test rigorously we would not have any machines for agriculture because the medieval world seriously resisted the industrial revolution. How about science? We all know how strenuously the "grandpa's" of the world reacted to the learning of Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, and Kepler.
Now I understand that all this begs the question of how we should think about and allow innovation. I don't have a good answer for this, which I'm sure seriously violates the "grandpa" principle. I'm just being a troublemaker. I'm pointing out the flaws in another system without proposing any alternatives or even endorsing an existing alternative. I have no rebuttal for this, as it is completely true.
I'm hoping that I'm not the only one thinking this way and that I'm not the only one turning this over in his mind. Maybe with a few of us carefully dissecting the issue, we can come to a thoughtful response.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2015
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Why Israel demanded a king
There are two reasons Israel demanded a king mentioned in 1 Samuel 8. The first reason is one we can hardly have cause to disagree with and gives us much room to discuss and think pastorally about our own parenting (or the way we hope to parent when the time comes). The second is generally given the greater attention in most sermons and discourses about this topic.
In 1 Samuel 8:4 the elders of the people gather and say to Samuel "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways." This is a massive indictment against the parenting of Samuel. We wonder, how can such a godly man like Samuel bring up rotten sons? The answer lies closer than we may think, or want to think. 1 Sam. 2:12 says that the children of Eli were corrupt. It even goes further and says that they did not know the Lord. Eli's sons were apostate. Who raised Samuel? Eli. Where did Samuel learn how to parent? Eli. How did Samuel's sons turn out? Not much better than Eli's. The Scriptures presume upon covenant faithfulness from generation to generation. It is to be assumed (Deut. 6:6-25) that our children will not depart from the teachings we place in front of them (cf. Prov. 22:6 ). Thus when elders of the Old Covenant or the New are chosen, one of the major requirements is that his household be in order, especially concerning the faithfulness of his children (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). The old saying, an apple doesn't fall far from the tree, is appropriate when considering this narrative. Our children's faithfulness is our responsibility. If our children depart from the faith, it is on us. We live in a far too individualistic age to take these issues seriously, it seems. We seem to believe that once we have done our 18 years (or less) of parenting, the choices our children make are totally theirs and on their heads. God does not think like this at all. God thinks covenantally and generationally.
The rest of 1 Sam. 8:4 continues by saying that the children of Israel desire a king like the other nations. Like the other nations. It was for keeping separate that so many of the God's diverse laws were given in the first place. He even says specifically not to walk in the ways of the nations in the land (cf. Lev. 18:3, 24; 20:23). And yet, now the children of Israel are demanding a king like the other nations. It is right, therefore, when God declares that they have rejected His government, not Samuel's (1 Sam. 8:7). It would seem like we would like having the Lord as our king, but sinful people continue to insist that the Lord's commandments exclude fun and enjoyment, rather than considering that ther eis only joy in obedience to God and His commands.
Poor Israel.
In 1 Samuel 8:4 the elders of the people gather and say to Samuel "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways." This is a massive indictment against the parenting of Samuel. We wonder, how can such a godly man like Samuel bring up rotten sons? The answer lies closer than we may think, or want to think. 1 Sam. 2:12 says that the children of Eli were corrupt. It even goes further and says that they did not know the Lord. Eli's sons were apostate. Who raised Samuel? Eli. Where did Samuel learn how to parent? Eli. How did Samuel's sons turn out? Not much better than Eli's. The Scriptures presume upon covenant faithfulness from generation to generation. It is to be assumed (Deut. 6:6-25) that our children will not depart from the teachings we place in front of them (cf. Prov. 22:6 ). Thus when elders of the Old Covenant or the New are chosen, one of the major requirements is that his household be in order, especially concerning the faithfulness of his children (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). The old saying, an apple doesn't fall far from the tree, is appropriate when considering this narrative. Our children's faithfulness is our responsibility. If our children depart from the faith, it is on us. We live in a far too individualistic age to take these issues seriously, it seems. We seem to believe that once we have done our 18 years (or less) of parenting, the choices our children make are totally theirs and on their heads. God does not think like this at all. God thinks covenantally and generationally.
The rest of 1 Sam. 8:4 continues by saying that the children of Israel desire a king like the other nations. Like the other nations. It was for keeping separate that so many of the God's diverse laws were given in the first place. He even says specifically not to walk in the ways of the nations in the land (cf. Lev. 18:3, 24; 20:23). And yet, now the children of Israel are demanding a king like the other nations. It is right, therefore, when God declares that they have rejected His government, not Samuel's (1 Sam. 8:7). It would seem like we would like having the Lord as our king, but sinful people continue to insist that the Lord's commandments exclude fun and enjoyment, rather than considering that ther eis only joy in obedience to God and His commands.
Poor Israel.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Five
Today we consider the final major principle in interpreting the Bible.
Scripture must be interpreted according to the genre in which it is written: Poetry should not be interpreted as prose, nor should prophecy be interpreted as prose. Each style of literary genre is to be interpreted differently, not all as the same thing. This hampers the so-called literal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is full of allusions, allegorical remarks, metaphors and other literary devices. Many students of the Bible claim to interpret the Scriptures literally, but they cannot do this consistently. For instance, John 15:1 portrays Christ as a vine, yet few (if any) interpreters would say that Jesus meant this literally. Is the difference in the text, does Jesus clue us into the metaphor in any way. Not really. He just says "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser." Throughout the Old Testament we see God portrayed in a variety of metaphors. None of these are to be taken literally with respect to God, for God is spirit and cannot be understood as anything literal or physical. He even warned against this in the Decalogue. Anthropomorphism is a frequent literary device among ancient writings and is never meant to be taken literally. Scripture may have a divine origin, but its writers were men who had to follow the rules of grammar for their social context, just as we do today. Idioms and other literary devices are not uncommon in Scripture, and we must not impose literal constraints on passages that do not have them. How do we tell the difference? We return to the previous point and let Scripture interpret Scripture. In the Olivet discourse Christ references events of catastrophic and cosmic proportions. Today most evangelical Christians understand these events to be future because they have not happened in time. However, this presents the problem of expecting a literal fulfillment of prophecy, which cannot be justified. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet records that in God's judgment on Babylon "the stars of heaven will not give their light and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth and the moon will not cause its light to shine" (Isaiah 13:10). This passage must be understood to have been fulfilled because of later revelation in the book of Daniel which references the judgment of Babylon by God through other nations (Daniel 2:36-45). Is this passage to be interpreted literally as one would passages such as Genesis 6 where God destroyed the earth with a flood? Some have suggested that events such as these are literal to God. However, this does not really answer the question. In supposing that scripture was written for contemporary hearers, it must also be supposed that they understood what was being written or said. Otherwise the very nature of Scripture as personal revelation from God is useless. Why would God go about telling us what is real to Him if it is not real to us as well? In short, even if passages such as Isaiah 13:10 are to be taken as literal to God, though not to mankind, they must have some form of reference point to mankind and interpretational value. Therefore, are they to be taken as literal to us? The direct answer is obviously not. The heavens are still around, we can look up and see them. This discussion should inform our understanding of the Olivet Discourse. Is it necessary to restrict Christ's words to literal events which were to occur? Not at all.
If we use these principles of hermeneutics carefully and faithfully, the Scriptures will open up to us with very few problems. We will not understand everything. That is part of the hermeneutical problem. We were not alive when they wrote and have a very different perception of things. The problem of translation is that it does not always catch the idioms and figures of speech that a culture like Israel or Babylon, or even Rome would have known instantly. It is perplexing to us to understand why Christ said that the Pharisees strained out a gnat to swallow a camel, but not impossible to understand it. There are some passages of Scripture that have perplexed scholars for years. The great church father Augustine once wrote concerning the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians, that he had no idea what Paul was talking about. The best efforts have yet to come to a conclusive answer to the question yet. That does not mean that no answer exists, only that we lack the tools to find it with. All of Scripture is meant to be understood. It may not be for our generation to understand that passage yet. It was not meant for the early church to understand the doctrine of justification, it was meant for those men who suffered for the Protestant Reformation to draw on the Scriptures and the insights of godly men to set down clearly the doctrine of sola fides. This is to say that we should be mindful of our task as exegetes of Scripture. It is there to say something. The depths of Scripture are deep, but they are not inpenetrable. We can exegete a passage to learn what that has to say. We can expound a passage based on our exegesis and learn what the Scriptures have to teach us there. We can systematize the passage with other similar passages to see what God would teach us regarding a similar theme. We can systematize the entire Bible and learn God's will for humanity. But we can do none of these things exhaustively, or without the aid of the Spirit. He is the primary agent in the understanding of Scripture. It is He who, as the Westminster Confession says, is the "supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we can rest" since it is He who is "speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I.x).
Scripture must be interpreted according to the genre in which it is written: Poetry should not be interpreted as prose, nor should prophecy be interpreted as prose. Each style of literary genre is to be interpreted differently, not all as the same thing. This hampers the so-called literal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is full of allusions, allegorical remarks, metaphors and other literary devices. Many students of the Bible claim to interpret the Scriptures literally, but they cannot do this consistently. For instance, John 15:1 portrays Christ as a vine, yet few (if any) interpreters would say that Jesus meant this literally. Is the difference in the text, does Jesus clue us into the metaphor in any way. Not really. He just says "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser." Throughout the Old Testament we see God portrayed in a variety of metaphors. None of these are to be taken literally with respect to God, for God is spirit and cannot be understood as anything literal or physical. He even warned against this in the Decalogue. Anthropomorphism is a frequent literary device among ancient writings and is never meant to be taken literally. Scripture may have a divine origin, but its writers were men who had to follow the rules of grammar for their social context, just as we do today. Idioms and other literary devices are not uncommon in Scripture, and we must not impose literal constraints on passages that do not have them. How do we tell the difference? We return to the previous point and let Scripture interpret Scripture. In the Olivet discourse Christ references events of catastrophic and cosmic proportions. Today most evangelical Christians understand these events to be future because they have not happened in time. However, this presents the problem of expecting a literal fulfillment of prophecy, which cannot be justified. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet records that in God's judgment on Babylon "the stars of heaven will not give their light and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth and the moon will not cause its light to shine" (Isaiah 13:10). This passage must be understood to have been fulfilled because of later revelation in the book of Daniel which references the judgment of Babylon by God through other nations (Daniel 2:36-45). Is this passage to be interpreted literally as one would passages such as Genesis 6 where God destroyed the earth with a flood? Some have suggested that events such as these are literal to God. However, this does not really answer the question. In supposing that scripture was written for contemporary hearers, it must also be supposed that they understood what was being written or said. Otherwise the very nature of Scripture as personal revelation from God is useless. Why would God go about telling us what is real to Him if it is not real to us as well? In short, even if passages such as Isaiah 13:10 are to be taken as literal to God, though not to mankind, they must have some form of reference point to mankind and interpretational value. Therefore, are they to be taken as literal to us? The direct answer is obviously not. The heavens are still around, we can look up and see them. This discussion should inform our understanding of the Olivet Discourse. Is it necessary to restrict Christ's words to literal events which were to occur? Not at all.
If we use these principles of hermeneutics carefully and faithfully, the Scriptures will open up to us with very few problems. We will not understand everything. That is part of the hermeneutical problem. We were not alive when they wrote and have a very different perception of things. The problem of translation is that it does not always catch the idioms and figures of speech that a culture like Israel or Babylon, or even Rome would have known instantly. It is perplexing to us to understand why Christ said that the Pharisees strained out a gnat to swallow a camel, but not impossible to understand it. There are some passages of Scripture that have perplexed scholars for years. The great church father Augustine once wrote concerning the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians, that he had no idea what Paul was talking about. The best efforts have yet to come to a conclusive answer to the question yet. That does not mean that no answer exists, only that we lack the tools to find it with. All of Scripture is meant to be understood. It may not be for our generation to understand that passage yet. It was not meant for the early church to understand the doctrine of justification, it was meant for those men who suffered for the Protestant Reformation to draw on the Scriptures and the insights of godly men to set down clearly the doctrine of sola fides. This is to say that we should be mindful of our task as exegetes of Scripture. It is there to say something. The depths of Scripture are deep, but they are not inpenetrable. We can exegete a passage to learn what that has to say. We can expound a passage based on our exegesis and learn what the Scriptures have to teach us there. We can systematize the passage with other similar passages to see what God would teach us regarding a similar theme. We can systematize the entire Bible and learn God's will for humanity. But we can do none of these things exhaustively, or without the aid of the Spirit. He is the primary agent in the understanding of Scripture. It is He who, as the Westminster Confession says, is the "supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we can rest" since it is He who is "speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I.x).
Monday, August 4, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Four
Today we consider the fourth major principle of biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Three
Today we consider the second major principle in biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Two
Today we will look at the first concept of Biblical Hermeneutics, Sola Scriptura
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Hermeneutics Part One
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Applied to the study of Scripture it gives us the rules or principles of interpretation to go by so that we do not misunderstand Scripture of misinterpret it. The rules are simple. They begin with the Bible itself and move to more abstract principles deduced from the Bible. They have been used and tested throughout the 2000-year history of the Church. They have been argued over and debated, but have come to stand for the conservative evangelical method of understanding Scripture as opposed to the liberal, neo-orthodox, analogical methods. These principles make up the work of the exegete of Scripture. He is one who attempts to draw out of Scripture what is there through many different tools. An exegete only draws out, he never reads into to Scripture what is not there. This contrasts the exegetical method of interpretation with the eisegetical method. The only thing we must be wary of is to assume that exegesis forbids the informing of a passage of Scripture by another passage of Scripture. This will be treated more below though. The most important of these will be listed and a short summary of their appropriateness will be given as we go.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Arminian Quandary
"that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their tresspasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19
If we were to take this verse as the Arminian must take it, we are left with a quandary. How is it that men ever actually pay for their own sins? Do they pay for the very last sin they commit, and Christ takes the punishment for all the others? Do they get their sins back at the Judgment seat once it has been established that they never accepted Christ in life? How does the salvation transaction really work in Arminian thought? Why is this a problem for the Arminian?
It is a problem because in the Arminian scheme, Christ didn't actually do anything except die and rise again on the cross. Everything else is potential in the Arminian scheme. Christ potentially paid for sins. Thus it is possible that no one would accept Him and He died in vain. Christ didn't actually take any sin onto himself on the cross, for it was not known yet that anyone would take advantage of the sacrifice. All of the disciples fled, it was possible that none of them could have returned or believed that He had been raised from the dead.
But why is this verse so troublesome for Arminians? Because it presents God actively doing something with the expectation that an action will follow, namely repentance and justification. The verse presents God as not imputing sins to people, but as Paul says in Romans, reserving them. Now that Christ has paid for all of those sins, they are now worthless actions. It is not uncommon to hear Christians say that Christ paid for every sin you will or can commit. This is true, but the Arminian has no business saying it without qualifying that Christ hasn't actually paid for them until a person accepts the sacrifice given. How then is Christ not sacrificed again every time a person accepts Him? The quandary is inexcusable. We border on heresy to say that Christ is crucified every time a person is saved, yet the Arminian cannot explain how Christ actually died for all who would be saved and died for the possibility that every man could be saved.
We may say that Christ died for every person that would accept him. But how did He know which ones to die for? Foreknowledge, the Arminian says. Christ looked forward in time and saw each and every person who would ever accept His sacrifice and those He saw, He elected and died for. But then we turn the old Arminian cry against them. What if someone wants to be saved but Christ did not foresee it? May they be saved? Must Christ repeat His sacrifice to allow them to be saved? It will suddenly be unfair to use that line of reasoning, I think we will be questioning the knowledge of God. As if the Arminian doesn't do this when he says that Christ died for everyone and anyone might be saved if they accept.
If we were to take this verse as the Arminian must take it, we are left with a quandary. How is it that men ever actually pay for their own sins? Do they pay for the very last sin they commit, and Christ takes the punishment for all the others? Do they get their sins back at the Judgment seat once it has been established that they never accepted Christ in life? How does the salvation transaction really work in Arminian thought? Why is this a problem for the Arminian?
It is a problem because in the Arminian scheme, Christ didn't actually do anything except die and rise again on the cross. Everything else is potential in the Arminian scheme. Christ potentially paid for sins. Thus it is possible that no one would accept Him and He died in vain. Christ didn't actually take any sin onto himself on the cross, for it was not known yet that anyone would take advantage of the sacrifice. All of the disciples fled, it was possible that none of them could have returned or believed that He had been raised from the dead.
But why is this verse so troublesome for Arminians? Because it presents God actively doing something with the expectation that an action will follow, namely repentance and justification. The verse presents God as not imputing sins to people, but as Paul says in Romans, reserving them. Now that Christ has paid for all of those sins, they are now worthless actions. It is not uncommon to hear Christians say that Christ paid for every sin you will or can commit. This is true, but the Arminian has no business saying it without qualifying that Christ hasn't actually paid for them until a person accepts the sacrifice given. How then is Christ not sacrificed again every time a person accepts Him? The quandary is inexcusable. We border on heresy to say that Christ is crucified every time a person is saved, yet the Arminian cannot explain how Christ actually died for all who would be saved and died for the possibility that every man could be saved.
We may say that Christ died for every person that would accept him. But how did He know which ones to die for? Foreknowledge, the Arminian says. Christ looked forward in time and saw each and every person who would ever accept His sacrifice and those He saw, He elected and died for. But then we turn the old Arminian cry against them. What if someone wants to be saved but Christ did not foresee it? May they be saved? Must Christ repeat His sacrifice to allow them to be saved? It will suddenly be unfair to use that line of reasoning, I think we will be questioning the knowledge of God. As if the Arminian doesn't do this when he says that Christ died for everyone and anyone might be saved if they accept.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)