Genre is certainly the dominating hermeneutic these days in interpreting the book of Revelation, no more clearly evident than among evangelicals, however evangelical commentaries frequently ignore the need for clarifying exactly what this apocalyptic being spoken of is [1] and how a lack of clarification of apocalyptic impacts ones understanding of the book of Revelation, leaving aside the ever present problems of defining genre itself. [2]
Nowhere is this confusion clearer than when scholars question how we can claim the book of Revelation is apocalyptic when some 30 of the 31 base characteristics used to define apocalyptic could just as rightly be said to be the marks of prophecy! Indeed the naming of the author of the book, [3] which Revelation does, and the use of epistolary sections which the book of Revelation also has, marks it more as prophecy than apocalyptic! The nail in the coffin here is that the opening verse which declares it is prophecy! In the face of this many today are opting to say the book is a mixture [4] of these genres while others go so far into the nether region as to proclaim that its meaning is to be determined by comparing it with non-biblical apocalyptic texts!
Robert Thomas notes “most distinctive of all, however, is the fact that the book calls itself a prophecy ( 1:3, 22:7,10,18,19 ).” [5] To neglect, or ignore such a clear pronouncement is to undermine all ones attempts to understand Scripture.
Again Robert Thomas gives all who study the book of Revelation an astute reminder when he states in his Commentary on Revelation that too often we meet ‘genre override’. We do well to heed his warning as already far too many purported scholars are relying upon genre when the exegesis and consideration of the text in context fails to meet their preconceived theology. What we encounter is amillennialist’s arbitrarily resorting to “apocalyptic genre” to justify not taking the text literally even when there are no grammatical indicators to suggest a given passage is not literal. It is basic hermeneutics to take careful note of such indicators as the words “like” or “as” in the text, for example as seen in chapter 13:2, or when the text already clearly indicates that what is said is figurative as seen in chapter 11 which explicitly says “figuratively called Sodom and Egypt” where also ‘their Lord was crucified’ 11:8 or again when the text declares to the reader that a “sign” is being given as in Rev 12:1, Indeed in Rev 1:1 we are already told that it was signified to his servants, that is, “shown by a sign”. Again, just consider the usage of numbers in chapter 21. Many have found issue with the number 1000 in chapter 20, yet the text frequently clarifies exactly the literal nuance to be understood when a number is not symbolic, as in chapter 21 verse 17 it tells us it was 144 cubits thick by man’s measurement! And in 21:16 it has told us “found to be 12000 stadia in length” and height and width. Given the careful use of such grammatical markers or when the author has repetitive use of the same number without any contextual indication that it is to be taken symbolically, one should be hesitant to assume a number is symbolic. [6]
The arbitrariness of interpreting Revelation literally at one point and then symbolically at another without any grammatical justification is evident when genre driven interpreters get to chapter 11. Most Commentators I have read take the two witnesses as two people. After all the context clearly explains, they are literally two. It says in verse 4 “they are the two olive trees and the two lampstands”. They are protected from harm vs 5, they are crucified in Jerusalem 11:8. And they are two prophets vs 10. Yet on their [7] hermeneutic one could just as easily say they are symbolic, that the point being made is legal witness, for 2 are required to stand as legal witness against another. Lo and behold are we surprised when Gentry develops this thought by saying the two witnesses “probably represent a small body of Christians who remained in Jerusalem to testify against” the temple. “They are portrayed as two, in that they are legal witnesses to the covenant curses.” [8] The trouble is that the reader is at a loss to determine much of what the book of Revelation is on about when there are so many possible interpretations. The incredible diversity found in those that advocate apocalyptic Genre indicate the problems remains of deciding which interpretation is likely. Here, the number two on Gentry’s interpretation means “a small number”. If they are to be taken as “a small number in Jerusalem”, then what historical evidence do we have of them being crucified ( Rev 11:8 ) in AD70, which is also what Gentry, a Preterist says the book of Revelation relates.
Commentators such as Mickelsen, Gordon D Fee & Douglas Stuart, Leland Ryken, M Robert Mulholland, Beasley-Murray, Mounce and Leon Morris ( those who combine a idealist and futurist approach ) [9] arbitrarily switch in their hermeneutical stride from Symbolic or figurative to literal and so reveal a dire hermeneutical inconsistency. Too often they take this approach and yet are silent in regard to providing justification for doing this.[10] It is hermeneutical gymnastics and further, methodologically undermines a rational approach to God’s revealed Word. [11] Appeal to apocalyptic genre just won’t overcome firstly, the subjective manner of being literal on whim, often ignoring context and secondly, the prevailing differences of a multiplicity of varying interpretations between them on such passages meaning. We see this frequently also in Paul Barnett’s book ‘Apocalypse: Now and Then’: We acknowledge his stated aim is to provide a “devotional commentary” for families and individuals to read, however, declaring Revelation to be a confusing book, and reinforcing this in the mind of the reader by saying that one needs a key to decipher it, he should provide a little more justification for some of his more questionable claims or at least admit there are people who differ with him on these points.
For example his book follows an idealist / future interpretation and his [ layered ] seven fold structure follows closely that argued by Hoekema with his recapitulative theory of Revelation which finds its genesis in Augustine.
As to this recapitulative theory evidenced in the structure, one fraught with disagreement, one commentator astutely asks ”why a 7 fold structure and not 3 or 10?” [12]
Concerning the recapitulative theory, it is Hoekema himself who admits that if you don’t assume that Rev 20:1-6 describes what takes place during the history of the Church then you would need to admit that the 1000 years reign of Christ coming after his return, and it is only when one assumes 20:1-6 describes the history of the church that it follows that Revelation follows a progressive parallelism structure. [13] The question is “can one come to the meaning of the text that Hoekema gives us on a natural contextual reading of the text”? If not, it isn’t much of an unveiling!
Another serious deficit not even addressed is the problem acknowledged by commentators on how you understand the two resurrections in Revelation 20. Can they plausibly be understood as spiritualizing the first resurrection, whilst taking the second one literally as a physical resurrection? Are people who make one symbolic and the other literal really dealing with the context in any grammatically meaningful way? I believe not.
Lastly, I find Wood's arguments on how to deal with numbers especially relevant given how Barnett lays so much interpretive weight upon his meaning of numbers in the book of Revelation. Again Barnett fails to explain why numbers mean what he says they mean, and this justification is crucial when there are Greek expressions available for John to declare something to be “a very long time” without using the numeric 1000. Woods points out [14] that the phrase, “ a long time” has been used by Matthew in Matt 25:19 to “depict the duration of the Lord’s absence prior to his second advent”, and given its context in Matthew this is indeed intriguing, so much so that one might have expected John to use it here. Even in the book of Revelation itself, John has used a phrase to indicate the temporal shortness of time as in his use of “a little while”, which occurs in Rev 17:11 and his use of it again in Rev 12:12 where it is said of satan that “he is filled with the fury because he knows that his time is short.” Instead of using “symbolic numbers” it seems to me to suggest that John is quite deliberate in both his use of such grammatical temporal phrases and in his choice of numbers.
Ryken’s comments on how one approaches the book of Revelation is characteristic of many preaching evangelicals today who see it as combining not merely the idealist and furturist but also the preterist and continuous historical. In essence he wants to have it all ways. He says: “Because of the literary form of the book, which portrays events symbolically, its relevance extends throughout the history of the world.” Thomas pg 89
Even whilst saying the book portrays events symbolically, he yet wants to keep references to the second coming of Jesus as literal. So while looking at chapters 4-18 in a very symbolic way, having interpreted so much of it under the idealistic rubric, [15] when they come to chapter 19:11-16 they want to see it as the literal physical return of Jesus to earth. If they remained true to their idealistic hermeneutic they would see Christ’s coming as metaphor for peoples moral and spiritual enlightenment much as the 19th Century liberals did with Jesus taking him purely as an enlightened man with a true sense of God. Of course taking chapter 19 in this way would mean it’s only about personal transformation and illumination, which is the end is pure mysticism.
The above is just a small investigation of the issues involved.
References:
[1] See Michael G. Michael Macquarie University, At. S.W Australia The Genre of the Apocalypse:What are they saying now? Bulletin of Biblical Studies Vol 18 Jul-Dec 1999
[2] See David E Aune ‘The Apocalypse of John and the problem of genre’ Semeia 36 ( 1986 ) pg 66
[3] Thus contravening apocalyptic as pseudonymity. See Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the apocalypse’. Pg 82. See also his Wycliffe Commentary on Revelation. Tmsj2e.pdf
[4] This is seen in saying it is Prophecy and Apocalyptic and Epistle. Cf C. L Blomberg ‘NT Genre criticism for the 1990’s’ Themelios 15/2 ( Jan / Feb 1990 ) pg 45. By conflating the three, who knew what it was saying until the 1980’s and thereafter?
[5] Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre … ‘ pg 82
[6] Yet Paul Barnett does exactly this, ignoring context and the books use of numbers and without any supporting argument unilaterally declares numbers mean what he posits. So 1000 in Rev 20 is “a great number or a very long period”, indicating he takes it as both numeric and as temporal! That on the face of it is mind boggling.
[7] Ammillenialists for example.
[8] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 421-22. This is an approach exemplified in the New Hermeneutic. See D A Carson. ‘The Gagging of God’ pg 106
[9] See R Thomas ‘Literary Genre..’ pg 88
[10] Apart from a bland appeal to “genre” as apocalyptic.
[11] In other words it exhibits irrationalism. As to the accusation that my approach in this summary is mired in modernism that rejoinder will be dealt with in another article, but I believe others have pointed out the failures of postmodernism etc eg D A Carson in ‘the Gagging of God’ and William J Larkin’s book ‘Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics.
[12] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003 pg 4.
[13] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003. pg 3
[14] Andy Woods pg 9. 'A Case for the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation' www.pretrib.org/data/pdf/woods-ACaseFortheFuturistl.pdf and 85.pdf
[15] So Leon Morris sees the trumpet plagues as something that has been “true throughout the ages and it will be until the End.” Morris Revelation pg 123 cited in Thomas ‘literary genre ..’ pg 89
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
John Dickson's oral tradition argument and understanding teach in 1 Timothy 2 vs 12
The Elephant in the room.
So far no one I have noticed has remarked on or dealt with the elephant in the room that is politely being ignored and yet we all are in danger of being squashed by it. The elephant is revealed in Dickson’s short statement that “I hope readers will find that the following historical observations, none of which are controversial in scholarship today, will clarify rather than confuse the meaning of 1 Tim 2” reference - Dickson chapter 2 ‘laying it down: what teaching really is.’
What isn’t controversial for Dickson is both the dating of the Gospels and the Oral Tradition and he immediately goes on to talk about the oral tradition in section 2.3. I have no problem with the dating of the Gospels as I see that as subsidiary to the issue before us, my main beef is with moving from how oral traditions are passed on via story etc to the notion that these somehow influence the meaning and content of NT passages.
But before I deal with the question of the content of these oral traditions, what about the support of scholarship regarding oral traditions. Dickson infers they support his thinking regarding 1 Timothy 2:12 but does it?
Of course I thank Dickson for making me read Dunn’s ‘Jesus Remembered ‘ even if it has been done rather too quickly and I am in danger of misunderstanding some of Dunn’s arguments. Even so I am sure some will generously point out my misreadings and mistakes.
Central to Dunn’s approach is to build upon the so called fruits of form criticism. Fruits which I myself take to be rotten because they are grounded in Kantian ideals and enlightenment ideas. I too had to study and write essays on form criticism as a requirement of my Bth but that doesn’t mean I agreed with the assumptions and approach of form criticism. It is just in my mind merely a nefarious notion.
We see form criticism mentioned frequently in Dunn, picking up as he does the advent of the oral tradition enquiry beginning with Bultmann and form criticism, Dunn page 193, But let’s be gracious and for the moment assume form criticism is a viable approach. And let’s also take Dunn as representative of the oral tradition hypothesis even though I admit I would do well to read Keener and Bauckham. But time for the non academic is of the essence and other priorities often must take precedence.
What I see Dunn saying in regard to oral tradition has more to do with the methods of transmission of oral traditions and how they work out in communities. I do not see it evidencing the content as to oral traditions or in particular the oral traditions of the apostles, and nor does Dunn provide any evidence of what those traditions were. Even when talking about Paul and his conversion Dunn is still very much only concerned with character and transmission of oral traditions. And even at that level he makes assumptions that can be regarded as controversial.
For example, using the three accounts of Paul’s conversion as attested in Acts 9, 22 and 26 Dunn sees them as valuable examples of the way oral tradition functioned. It seems for Dunn that central to his analysis of the biblical accounts is his assumption from Bailey that the significant thing to focus in on as evidence of an oral tradition is the core element, one can readily acknowledge this core even when there may be a difference in supporting details. However in regard to Acts 9, 22 and 26 this assumes that Luke is not using Paul’s conversion theologically. That is, he is being truthful to the facts of the event of Paul’s conversion but selecting details to make a point within the movement of his Book. Why assume these passages reflect the ‘oral principle of variation within the same’ pg 212 rather than it is Luke’s inspired use of the essential reality of Paul’s conversion which Luke sourced out from eyewitnesses? Luke 1:2 Further we need to ask what is the practical application of assuming the passages are examples of the way oral traditions functioned. Even if we go so far as to grant the possibility of the source of the event Luke uses to be an oral tradition one has to be careful in how they use this to determine the meaning of the passage. Far too often they are in danger of missing the point drawn out by the supporting details eg Paul before Ananias in chp 26, that Luke is making and settling instead for some generic understanding and application. This approach can be likened to how some take from the three parallel accounts of the Gospel stories where they dealt with as similar instance and preaching an amalgamated message.
At the one point Dunn veers more towards considering the content of the oral traditions, namely in the post Easter emphasis of the Jesus tradition that Moule’s work focuses on, but even then there is little by way of the content of those traditions discussed and certainly no compelling evidence presented.
So as far as I can see Dunn addresses the character and transmission of oral traditions but doesn’t speak of the content of those traditions.
The point I then have to ask is how one determines what the content of these oral traditions are when there is no extant documentation of their content. To presume that the content is the New Testament is to presume too much. It is pure speculation. It becomes even more precarious when Dickson claims that the oral traditions of the Apostles were so important that special care had to be taken in passing them on to others, and thus the implied restriction of teaching oral traditions by women. Yet we must ask, if these traditions are so important as to their content how come there are no sources regarding their content, either in the period before the writing of the New Testament or even via way of commentary by Church Fathers. An reference to Papias does not support the importance or content of these apostolic traditions and that reference in Dunn only picks up on his statement that snatches of prayer and hymnody flow in and out of the texture of pastoral exhortation. However to presume that such an expression in writing must have some causal link to oral traditions because oral traditions reflect a similar character makes a big assumption that is without supporting justification. Be that as it may, Papias still doesn’t mention content regarding the oral traditions of the apostles. See Dunn. ‘Jesus Remembered’ Pg223 and footnote 216. I would have thought if these apostolic traditions were so authoritatively important someone would have made notes somewhere and these sources would have been found. It is sounding far too much like an argument from silence.
Consider how Dickson sees the historical support of the oral tradition as working out in his argument.
He says “Christian doctrine in the early decades of the church was maintained, for the most part, not in writings but through the memorizing and rehearsing of all the fixed information the apostles had laid down for the churches”, and says we see a glimpse of this in the Lord’s Supper of 1 Cor 11 “as I passed on to you”.
He then makes the remarkable statement “Epistles like 1 Corinthians were not the principle means of laying down the apostolic traditions; they functioned as written supplements to an oral tradition that had already been ‘delivered to’ and ‘received by’ the churches over many years. This may require some imagination to think through but it cannot really be disputed.”
I may have misconstrued Dickson’s point here in thinking the above statement seems to put more weight and importance on the oral traditions than the New Testament Scriptures, they are just “supplements”. But however we take this, it remains strange that such weighty and authoritative traditions have no extant documentation nor are mentioned by the Church fathers. That is an historical gap the size of a black hole – nothing is left but supposition or as Dickson says a bit of imagination.
Let me make one final point which is not at all related to historical scholarship. See how Dickson moves his argument regarding 1 Timothy 2:12. First that oral traditions were in play before the writing of the New Testament documents. Second, that there were oral traditions of the apostles in play. Third, that he then takes “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 in a technical sense so that Paul equates teach with the passing on and laying down these oral traditions of the apostles. What he needs to show clearly is that this was Paul’s intent in using the word teach. That Paul clearly links the word teach with apostolic traditions and their passing on. But Paul doesn’t do that. Indeed he says in the Pastoral Epistles which Dickson wants to say is the documentary range for considering this notion of teach, that in Titus Paul says women can teach other younger women. One would then have to conclude that the limitation in 1 Tim 2:12 has to do with men and women in meeting together, not the restricted role of such teaching to men! Of course Dickson could say that teach in Titus 2:3 is a compound of teach and good, so it’s “teach what is good” and so is not used in the technical sense he gives teach in 1 Tim 2:12.
Just my two cents worth in a very limited time frame. Certainly John Dickson has stimulated me in thinking about such references in the epistles that speak of the prior teachings of the apostles to the Churches before the inscripturation of the New Testament.
In Christ
Gary
So far no one I have noticed has remarked on or dealt with the elephant in the room that is politely being ignored and yet we all are in danger of being squashed by it. The elephant is revealed in Dickson’s short statement that “I hope readers will find that the following historical observations, none of which are controversial in scholarship today, will clarify rather than confuse the meaning of 1 Tim 2” reference - Dickson chapter 2 ‘laying it down: what teaching really is.’
What isn’t controversial for Dickson is both the dating of the Gospels and the Oral Tradition and he immediately goes on to talk about the oral tradition in section 2.3. I have no problem with the dating of the Gospels as I see that as subsidiary to the issue before us, my main beef is with moving from how oral traditions are passed on via story etc to the notion that these somehow influence the meaning and content of NT passages.
But before I deal with the question of the content of these oral traditions, what about the support of scholarship regarding oral traditions. Dickson infers they support his thinking regarding 1 Timothy 2:12 but does it?
Of course I thank Dickson for making me read Dunn’s ‘Jesus Remembered ‘ even if it has been done rather too quickly and I am in danger of misunderstanding some of Dunn’s arguments. Even so I am sure some will generously point out my misreadings and mistakes.
Central to Dunn’s approach is to build upon the so called fruits of form criticism. Fruits which I myself take to be rotten because they are grounded in Kantian ideals and enlightenment ideas. I too had to study and write essays on form criticism as a requirement of my Bth but that doesn’t mean I agreed with the assumptions and approach of form criticism. It is just in my mind merely a nefarious notion.
We see form criticism mentioned frequently in Dunn, picking up as he does the advent of the oral tradition enquiry beginning with Bultmann and form criticism, Dunn page 193, But let’s be gracious and for the moment assume form criticism is a viable approach. And let’s also take Dunn as representative of the oral tradition hypothesis even though I admit I would do well to read Keener and Bauckham. But time for the non academic is of the essence and other priorities often must take precedence.
What I see Dunn saying in regard to oral tradition has more to do with the methods of transmission of oral traditions and how they work out in communities. I do not see it evidencing the content as to oral traditions or in particular the oral traditions of the apostles, and nor does Dunn provide any evidence of what those traditions were. Even when talking about Paul and his conversion Dunn is still very much only concerned with character and transmission of oral traditions. And even at that level he makes assumptions that can be regarded as controversial.
For example, using the three accounts of Paul’s conversion as attested in Acts 9, 22 and 26 Dunn sees them as valuable examples of the way oral tradition functioned. It seems for Dunn that central to his analysis of the biblical accounts is his assumption from Bailey that the significant thing to focus in on as evidence of an oral tradition is the core element, one can readily acknowledge this core even when there may be a difference in supporting details. However in regard to Acts 9, 22 and 26 this assumes that Luke is not using Paul’s conversion theologically. That is, he is being truthful to the facts of the event of Paul’s conversion but selecting details to make a point within the movement of his Book. Why assume these passages reflect the ‘oral principle of variation within the same’ pg 212 rather than it is Luke’s inspired use of the essential reality of Paul’s conversion which Luke sourced out from eyewitnesses? Luke 1:2 Further we need to ask what is the practical application of assuming the passages are examples of the way oral traditions functioned. Even if we go so far as to grant the possibility of the source of the event Luke uses to be an oral tradition one has to be careful in how they use this to determine the meaning of the passage. Far too often they are in danger of missing the point drawn out by the supporting details eg Paul before Ananias in chp 26, that Luke is making and settling instead for some generic understanding and application. This approach can be likened to how some take from the three parallel accounts of the Gospel stories where they dealt with as similar instance and preaching an amalgamated message.
At the one point Dunn veers more towards considering the content of the oral traditions, namely in the post Easter emphasis of the Jesus tradition that Moule’s work focuses on, but even then there is little by way of the content of those traditions discussed and certainly no compelling evidence presented.
So as far as I can see Dunn addresses the character and transmission of oral traditions but doesn’t speak of the content of those traditions.
The point I then have to ask is how one determines what the content of these oral traditions are when there is no extant documentation of their content. To presume that the content is the New Testament is to presume too much. It is pure speculation. It becomes even more precarious when Dickson claims that the oral traditions of the Apostles were so important that special care had to be taken in passing them on to others, and thus the implied restriction of teaching oral traditions by women. Yet we must ask, if these traditions are so important as to their content how come there are no sources regarding their content, either in the period before the writing of the New Testament or even via way of commentary by Church Fathers. An reference to Papias does not support the importance or content of these apostolic traditions and that reference in Dunn only picks up on his statement that snatches of prayer and hymnody flow in and out of the texture of pastoral exhortation. However to presume that such an expression in writing must have some causal link to oral traditions because oral traditions reflect a similar character makes a big assumption that is without supporting justification. Be that as it may, Papias still doesn’t mention content regarding the oral traditions of the apostles. See Dunn. ‘Jesus Remembered’ Pg223 and footnote 216. I would have thought if these apostolic traditions were so authoritatively important someone would have made notes somewhere and these sources would have been found. It is sounding far too much like an argument from silence.
Consider how Dickson sees the historical support of the oral tradition as working out in his argument.
He says “Christian doctrine in the early decades of the church was maintained, for the most part, not in writings but through the memorizing and rehearsing of all the fixed information the apostles had laid down for the churches”, and says we see a glimpse of this in the Lord’s Supper of 1 Cor 11 “as I passed on to you”.
He then makes the remarkable statement “Epistles like 1 Corinthians were not the principle means of laying down the apostolic traditions; they functioned as written supplements to an oral tradition that had already been ‘delivered to’ and ‘received by’ the churches over many years. This may require some imagination to think through but it cannot really be disputed.”
I may have misconstrued Dickson’s point here in thinking the above statement seems to put more weight and importance on the oral traditions than the New Testament Scriptures, they are just “supplements”. But however we take this, it remains strange that such weighty and authoritative traditions have no extant documentation nor are mentioned by the Church fathers. That is an historical gap the size of a black hole – nothing is left but supposition or as Dickson says a bit of imagination.
Let me make one final point which is not at all related to historical scholarship. See how Dickson moves his argument regarding 1 Timothy 2:12. First that oral traditions were in play before the writing of the New Testament documents. Second, that there were oral traditions of the apostles in play. Third, that he then takes “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 in a technical sense so that Paul equates teach with the passing on and laying down these oral traditions of the apostles. What he needs to show clearly is that this was Paul’s intent in using the word teach. That Paul clearly links the word teach with apostolic traditions and their passing on. But Paul doesn’t do that. Indeed he says in the Pastoral Epistles which Dickson wants to say is the documentary range for considering this notion of teach, that in Titus Paul says women can teach other younger women. One would then have to conclude that the limitation in 1 Tim 2:12 has to do with men and women in meeting together, not the restricted role of such teaching to men! Of course Dickson could say that teach in Titus 2:3 is a compound of teach and good, so it’s “teach what is good” and so is not used in the technical sense he gives teach in 1 Tim 2:12.
Just my two cents worth in a very limited time frame. Certainly John Dickson has stimulated me in thinking about such references in the epistles that speak of the prior teachings of the apostles to the Churches before the inscripturation of the New Testament.
In Christ
Gary
Monday, February 11, 2013
John Dickson's oral tradition argument in relation to teach in 1 Tim 2:12
Just when I thought I was getting somewhere in the study of Hermeneutics for my study of Ricoeur, my friend Sean said I must read the latest booklet on 1 Tim 2:12 by John Dickson.
You can at present download it from Amazon, I actually was able to get the kindle free version which one can read in a kindle app that loads onto your PC.
You can get a fair appraisal of his argument over at Lionel Windsor's blog and there you will also read replies to it by John Dickson and critiques by Peter Bolt over on Mark Thompson's blog.
I will post my reply I put on Lionel's blog tomorrow. In a nutshell I just think that to claim teach in 1 Tim 2:12 is used by Paul in a technical sense of passing on the traditions of the apostles has no grounding in the historical investigation of oral traditions. John Dickson in my thinking offers a novel interpretation but has no evidence to justify it. But you can see my concerns and make up your own mind.
In Christ,
Gary
You can at present download it from Amazon, I actually was able to get the kindle free version which one can read in a kindle app that loads onto your PC.
You can get a fair appraisal of his argument over at Lionel Windsor's blog and there you will also read replies to it by John Dickson and critiques by Peter Bolt over on Mark Thompson's blog.
I will post my reply I put on Lionel's blog tomorrow. In a nutshell I just think that to claim teach in 1 Tim 2:12 is used by Paul in a technical sense of passing on the traditions of the apostles has no grounding in the historical investigation of oral traditions. John Dickson in my thinking offers a novel interpretation but has no evidence to justify it. But you can see my concerns and make up your own mind.
In Christ,
Gary
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Gunning for God and the New Atheists
Frankly the new atheist are boring me, but I still picked
up this book to read because Lennox says things in profound and astute ways. He
has not disappointed. This book points out charitably the foundational failures
of the new atheists arguments, or better still, it points out the “preaching”
of the new atheists have no grounding in reality, because their approach makes
everything meaningless to start with.
Sadly too many secularists are taking their unsupported
opinion as gospel and Lennox brings this out.
What I really enjoyed about the book was how Lennox employs a very careful analysis of the objections of
the New Atheists.. It’s something that many Christians would do well to
emulate. We need to think carefully about the assumptions and implications of
what the New Atheists are arguing.
On pages 46-47 Lennox looks at the consistency of the new
atheists reliance upon Freud and shows it just won’t do the work they assume it
will. Effectively Lennox does an
internal critique of the New Atheists arguments. Speaking in the context of ‘Is
Faith a delusion’ pg 45f Lennox points
out that although Dawkins rejects faith, it is merely his definition off faith
that he rejects. Indeed the Oxford English Dictionary points out a delusion is
‘a fixed false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence.’ What is
crucial here is the falsity of the belief. That’s why the objection you may as
well believe in the flying spaghetti monster or leprechauns doesn’t unsettle
us. Years ago Edwin Orr pointed out the nonsense
of such objections. The Flying Spaghetti
Monster is conceptual nonsense having no substance in the real world, It is as
bad as arguing for a square circle since pieces of spaghetti do not a monster
make and certainly they don’t have the physical constitution giving spaghetti the
ability to “fly”.
Likewise today Alister Mcgrath substantiates that
it is only a delusion when such things don’t exist
pg46. So if God does not exist
then faith in God is a delusion, however
just as true is that if God does exist then atheism is a delusion. This is
where Lennox is at his most stimulating.
Consider then how Lennox applies this to the oft quoted
support of Freud by the New Atheists. He states that the objection that belief
in God is a delusion, a crutch to cope with the real world and its
uncertainties, can be turned on its head and asked of the unbeliever. “Is not
atheism a delusion, a solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice,
murders, we are not going to be judged.”
What we find will happen when we ask this of the
unbeliever, is that she may possibly
return to what matters, the evidence for God, the centrality of the
life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
From his analysis we see that the argument of
Freud helps no one unless you offer grounds for believing or not believing in
God.
In Christ,
Gary
In Christ,
Gary
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Amos 6 the problem of complacency
Sermon Amos 6 May 2012
Today we have met together to deal with God. To deal with what He says through His Word.
Some here today are not going to like what I have to say – but you know – it’s not me who is giving the warning in Amos 6 - it is God.
It’s easy to pick a passage to make people like you and speak only positive things, in fact psychologists would say don’t say negative things, but you know what – God says negative things and we should listen to Him.
Some in our congregation have at various times expressed to me their difficulty with understanding the Old Testament.
No doubt on first glance many today will feel exactly that having just had our Bible reading.
But let me assure you that sense can be made of it. God’s Word is able to be understood.
To do that, let’s first recap a bit on where we have come in studying Amos.
Where have back in Amos one and two seen that this preacher, this prophet of God who is speaking in a time of a divided nation, the northern and southern Kingdom, Judah worshipping in Jerusalem and Israel with its capital in Samaria worshipping mainly at Bethel. Amos starts off by pointing out that God will surely bring judgment upon Israel’s despicable neighbors. No doubt the cheering was immense at his words.
But then comes the crunch.
God will indeed deal with the sins of the nations with their wickedness, but this does not absolve God’s people of judgment for their own wickedness. They are special to Him, they are chosen by Him, but this does not mean a license to do as they please.
They cannot treat others badly, with disdain because that is what they were doing in ripping off the poor.
A bit of this comes out in the name and description of Amos the prophet.
In chapter 1:1 we are told he was a shepherd, specifically from Tekoa. He is also a “caretaker”, “a caretaker of Sycamore trees” 7:14, this for some might conjure up the idea he was a well off farmer, but the sycamore tree produced a very poor kind of fruit, which only the poorest people ate [ Boice pg 135 ] so we understand how he knows the lot of the poor! The oppressed, and he speaks out that God is not impressed how they are being treated by the middle class and well off.
A child can sit on their fathers knee but that privilege does not mean license to hit their father in the face. Sadly if we reflect upon it – we do this an aweful lot don’t we? We need to wake up to ourselves and listen to him and adore Him.
God holds his people accountable for their actions towards Him. He has laid out for them right from the start, back in Exodus and Deuteronomy what he expects of them and if they are to receive blessing then they ought to obey what he says.
Complacency and putting your trust in earthly securities is a folly and it has dire consequences.
Just recently they celebrated the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.
On that ship there was the crew, and also the affluent lounging on their ivory chairs and those who raised just enough money to pay for passage to a new land where they hoped they could make a new life for themselves.
But even though they were in dangerous waters, they were in the place which was known for icebergs, the crew were complacent. The Captain had his own agenda, and he and the crew were complacent about the danger. And the ship they said even God couldn’t sink, sank!
There is a difference between complacency and apathy and we do well to understand the difference.
Apathy is when you lack a feeling or emotion, you show indifference, a lack of interest or concern.
Complacency - a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.
Israel and Judah’s danger was more significant than we imagine – after all God had promised Abraham that his descendant s would be more numerous than the stars in heaven. Gen 15:5 and now here he declares that Israel will be like a virgin that died childless! Amos 5:2 This would be shocking to the Israelites to hear this.
So here in chapter 6 what does the Lord through the prophet accuse them of?
For both Zion, that is Jerusalem ( Southern kingdom ) and Samaria ( in the Northern kingdom )
The leadership are arrogant, some are spiritually arrogant,
they believe because God is present in His Temple in Jerusalem that they are secure, invincible.
They forget that God doesn’t stand sin. And very soon, after Israel, the northern Kingdom was taken off into exile, the prophet Ezekiel who is in exile with them has a vision of the glory departing from the Temple and from the city of Jerusalem. God leaves His people.
And those in the North are just as smug. They trust in their armies and defenses. It tells us there in vs 1, when it mentions not merely Samaria but Mount Samaria, where the city was set, up on a nice fortified mountain.
To undermine their confidence and make stark their foolishness Amos then mentions three cities, vs3
These are three city states on the borders of the promised land, and each of them succumbed to invasion.
Not only were the leaders arrogant, ignoring the ever present dangers around about, the wealthy, were lying around on ivory inlaid couches.
I prefer the word wealthy because it isn’t just the upper class by which we think for ourselves the Murdocks and Packers or more so even Gina Rhinehart, the wealthiest woman in the world. It is the well off.
They ate the choice meats,. the best meat of the calves, no 10 year old bull for them.
They had every sort of entertainment to sooth their ears vs 5 No doubt to block out the wails of the poor .
They were so well off they could wile away the hours on their musical instruments, even experimenting at writing songs. And by mentioning David it is likely it is referring to not only personal music but “religious music.” Self indulgent religious music! You know the kind of hymns – all about me and my feelings, not God!
Verse 6 tells us they abuse the good things God has given us. They drank their wines by the bottle. And the best wines at that, no the $20 bottle but the $130 bottles, and they had the best oils = perfumes, not the cheapo at K-Mart but Esta Lauder which Sarah sells at work! Again worth $100.
So while they lavish it all upon themselves and show their self-indulgence,
they don’t care about anyone else,
they don’t care about the ruin of Joseph, which stands for the ruin of Israel,
see how already back in 5:15 Amos has mentioned only a remnant of Joseph will be left. Only a minuscule number will be spared and receive mercy.
But get this, this verse that “they don’t grieve over the ruin of Joseph” is a sin of omission, they are criticized by God for what they fail to do!
I can accept if I murder and cheat someone, they’re acts of commission, but acts of omission I push to the furthest recesses of my mind.
This is one of the serious consequences of people who are complacent – they fail to do what they should.
And then in verse 7 with a bit of irony Amos brings us back to verse 1 again because he says you will be among the first to go into exile, you guys who presume to be leaders of the foremost the number 1, the first nation, the nation chosen by God to be leader of the nations of the world. You – will go first into exile!
This is more significant than you probably think. Israel was meant to be a light to the nations, that’s what God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12:3 told us. But here by their actions and inaction they were anything but.
They were exactly the opposite,
There was no justice, there was no righteousness, only self-indulgence!
The second half of the chapter refers to the certainty of the Judgment of God upon them he has sworn by himself,
it’s a done deal because of their wickedness.
And so in spite of their proud confidence judgment is certain so much so that not just cities but homes are decimated, if a home has 10 men then they too shall die, and it will be such a calamity that plague occurs and any survivors are forced to burn the dead.
This is a big thing because Israel never cremated people, they buried them, but this is so devastating and so quick and on such a scale that they have to burn the bodies to limit the plague.
The reason for that unusual statement in verse 10 about being told to not mention the name of the Lord is clarified by context! In verse 11 we are told it’s the Lord who is bringing about this judgment so don’t draw attention to yourself!
So in a sense it isn’t hard with a bit of study to see what the Lord is saying through Amos to Judah and Israel.
But have we felt its impact?
It’s dire warning?
They, the Israelites, have the warning given last week in the sermon by Sean on the day of the Lord, God’s wrath being poured out as revealed in chapter 5.
What is harder
is the application to us today,
hard in the sense that we don’t like our comfortableness ruffled.
We don’t like being challenged to repent or get our act together.
They were complacent. So the question is – Are we?
So where do we stand today?
Well --- do we understand the imminent danger Israel and Judah faced?
We would if we heard Sean’s sermon last week on chapter 5 on the day of the Lord. If we heard that sermon we’d see how chapter 6 makes perfect sense. They indeed were complacent. The danger was there and their self-satisfaction blinded them!
Are we likewise blinded?
Were we here last week to hear the sermon on chapter 5?
Or are we one of those that only make it to church every one in three Sundays?
Each one of us here in this predicament has to access our own reasons at this point, because I am not saying “well you should have been here even if you were sick…”
But such a warning as Amos gives convicts us when we weren’t here because we were self indulgent!
I have said it before – do we understand this great family God has called us into here at Bomaderry? Do we understand that we are a body here at Bomaderry?
What are we teaching our children at that level? Are we teaching them to love the church, to love his people?
I stand as much convicted of this as anyone else here today.
I have two grown children and had to discuss with them my failure to teach them by word and actions to love Jesus’ church!
The two eldest have left home and for two years it has been a struggle to find a church and commit to serving others there.
It’s easy to not think this through.
8am and 10 am
I had a warden a number of years ago who had children in Canberra who would frequently visit him and his wife on Sundays and on those occasions they would stay home to greet them. Of course they didn’t come on Saturdays because they had sport and so on, but Sundays suited them. But I talked with John and asked him had he thought about the example he was setting his children! What he was modeling them about his love of God and His people the church. So he thought about it, told his children to let themselves in and they’d be home after church. And you know what? They started arriving early and coming with their parents to church!
Each of us fail often to do as we should
- Sadly we are complacent.
The letters of Jesus to the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 apply to us.
They are a wake up call repent !
Don’t put up with error, with heresy.
Don’t have a form of religion turn up at church on Sundays sometimes when it suits. He the Lord has called you into a family, has made you a body to care and nurture each other to support, encourage, to serve one another here.
But instead of using the letters of the 7 churches in Revelation chapters 2 & 3 I want us to come back to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:33
“seek first the KOG and His righteousness.” Where is our passion for Jesus? Where is our passion for His people?
8am Harold and Murial Doyle couple in their 70’s – frail he dying with weak heart and emphysema .. he was housebound, yet a fervent prayer life for the churches, churches in Sydney, for the gospel, for individuals even beyond their own church. Yet she would try and did make it to evening service frequently to encourage the “young ones”.
10am Again, what are you passionate about? You will see it by what takes precedence what take up most of your time, your focus.
Look at your facebook page – what does it tell you your focus is?
I have a relative who puts up endless pictures of their child. It is something that consumes her! There’s practically nothing else she posts on.
Does your facebook reflect something like that?
I’m just as guilty – I got a new motorbike and was really quick to post a picture of it on my facebook page!
so when I reflected on it I began to talk about God and His Word and what it means to be a Christian! After all, that is really my passion but it is so easy to make it second to other things..
Are you complacent about church and meeting together as His people. You easily let other things distract you.
I went out sat night and was tired.
My kids have sport so we couldn’t make it.
My family came over for lunch so we couldn’t make it.
There’s lots more
I know the excuses I have either had them said to me or I have used them myself.
Sadly we don’t even let the thought creep into our mind that there’s church at night we could fellowship here with.
Perhaps we feel this idea begin to arise in our thinking and we quickly push it down.
Tough words. Well Jesus said tough words in the letters to the 7 churches.
Don’t get shirty with me, we are all challenged by the Words of God in the Scriptures.
If we don’t talk plainly about these things we are educating each other and our children to be passengers on the titanic.
Listen then carefully to Amos last words in this chapter.
In verse 12 Amos says you lot – you’re not foolish when it comes to where you ride your horses, or where you plow your fields for grain,
It’s a bit like you’re not foolish to drive your car down the wrong side of the pacific highway,
and you don’t let your milk go curdled and cheese moldy and then gulf it down anyway.
So why be foolish when there’s danger now!
Wake up and face the sin that brings God’s judgment.
“Seek First and foremost, as the crowning aim of your everyday life, the KOG and His righteousness.”
Amen.
Today we have met together to deal with God. To deal with what He says through His Word.
Some here today are not going to like what I have to say – but you know – it’s not me who is giving the warning in Amos 6 - it is God.
It’s easy to pick a passage to make people like you and speak only positive things, in fact psychologists would say don’t say negative things, but you know what – God says negative things and we should listen to Him.
Some in our congregation have at various times expressed to me their difficulty with understanding the Old Testament.
No doubt on first glance many today will feel exactly that having just had our Bible reading.
But let me assure you that sense can be made of it. God’s Word is able to be understood.
To do that, let’s first recap a bit on where we have come in studying Amos.
Where have back in Amos one and two seen that this preacher, this prophet of God who is speaking in a time of a divided nation, the northern and southern Kingdom, Judah worshipping in Jerusalem and Israel with its capital in Samaria worshipping mainly at Bethel. Amos starts off by pointing out that God will surely bring judgment upon Israel’s despicable neighbors. No doubt the cheering was immense at his words.
But then comes the crunch.
God will indeed deal with the sins of the nations with their wickedness, but this does not absolve God’s people of judgment for their own wickedness. They are special to Him, they are chosen by Him, but this does not mean a license to do as they please.
They cannot treat others badly, with disdain because that is what they were doing in ripping off the poor.
A bit of this comes out in the name and description of Amos the prophet.
In chapter 1:1 we are told he was a shepherd, specifically from Tekoa. He is also a “caretaker”, “a caretaker of Sycamore trees” 7:14, this for some might conjure up the idea he was a well off farmer, but the sycamore tree produced a very poor kind of fruit, which only the poorest people ate [ Boice pg 135 ] so we understand how he knows the lot of the poor! The oppressed, and he speaks out that God is not impressed how they are being treated by the middle class and well off.
A child can sit on their fathers knee but that privilege does not mean license to hit their father in the face. Sadly if we reflect upon it – we do this an aweful lot don’t we? We need to wake up to ourselves and listen to him and adore Him.
God holds his people accountable for their actions towards Him. He has laid out for them right from the start, back in Exodus and Deuteronomy what he expects of them and if they are to receive blessing then they ought to obey what he says.
Complacency and putting your trust in earthly securities is a folly and it has dire consequences.
Just recently they celebrated the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.
On that ship there was the crew, and also the affluent lounging on their ivory chairs and those who raised just enough money to pay for passage to a new land where they hoped they could make a new life for themselves.
But even though they were in dangerous waters, they were in the place which was known for icebergs, the crew were complacent. The Captain had his own agenda, and he and the crew were complacent about the danger. And the ship they said even God couldn’t sink, sank!
There is a difference between complacency and apathy and we do well to understand the difference.
Apathy is when you lack a feeling or emotion, you show indifference, a lack of interest or concern.
Complacency - a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.
Israel and Judah’s danger was more significant than we imagine – after all God had promised Abraham that his descendant s would be more numerous than the stars in heaven. Gen 15:5 and now here he declares that Israel will be like a virgin that died childless! Amos 5:2 This would be shocking to the Israelites to hear this.
So here in chapter 6 what does the Lord through the prophet accuse them of?
For both Zion, that is Jerusalem ( Southern kingdom ) and Samaria ( in the Northern kingdom )
The leadership are arrogant, some are spiritually arrogant,
they believe because God is present in His Temple in Jerusalem that they are secure, invincible.
They forget that God doesn’t stand sin. And very soon, after Israel, the northern Kingdom was taken off into exile, the prophet Ezekiel who is in exile with them has a vision of the glory departing from the Temple and from the city of Jerusalem. God leaves His people.
And those in the North are just as smug. They trust in their armies and defenses. It tells us there in vs 1, when it mentions not merely Samaria but Mount Samaria, where the city was set, up on a nice fortified mountain.
To undermine their confidence and make stark their foolishness Amos then mentions three cities, vs3
These are three city states on the borders of the promised land, and each of them succumbed to invasion.
Not only were the leaders arrogant, ignoring the ever present dangers around about, the wealthy, were lying around on ivory inlaid couches.
I prefer the word wealthy because it isn’t just the upper class by which we think for ourselves the Murdocks and Packers or more so even Gina Rhinehart, the wealthiest woman in the world. It is the well off.
They ate the choice meats,. the best meat of the calves, no 10 year old bull for them.
They had every sort of entertainment to sooth their ears vs 5 No doubt to block out the wails of the poor .
They were so well off they could wile away the hours on their musical instruments, even experimenting at writing songs. And by mentioning David it is likely it is referring to not only personal music but “religious music.” Self indulgent religious music! You know the kind of hymns – all about me and my feelings, not God!
Verse 6 tells us they abuse the good things God has given us. They drank their wines by the bottle. And the best wines at that, no the $20 bottle but the $130 bottles, and they had the best oils = perfumes, not the cheapo at K-Mart but Esta Lauder which Sarah sells at work! Again worth $100.
So while they lavish it all upon themselves and show their self-indulgence,
they don’t care about anyone else,
they don’t care about the ruin of Joseph, which stands for the ruin of Israel,
see how already back in 5:15 Amos has mentioned only a remnant of Joseph will be left. Only a minuscule number will be spared and receive mercy.
But get this, this verse that “they don’t grieve over the ruin of Joseph” is a sin of omission, they are criticized by God for what they fail to do!
I can accept if I murder and cheat someone, they’re acts of commission, but acts of omission I push to the furthest recesses of my mind.
This is one of the serious consequences of people who are complacent – they fail to do what they should.
And then in verse 7 with a bit of irony Amos brings us back to verse 1 again because he says you will be among the first to go into exile, you guys who presume to be leaders of the foremost the number 1, the first nation, the nation chosen by God to be leader of the nations of the world. You – will go first into exile!
This is more significant than you probably think. Israel was meant to be a light to the nations, that’s what God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12:3 told us. But here by their actions and inaction they were anything but.
They were exactly the opposite,
There was no justice, there was no righteousness, only self-indulgence!
The second half of the chapter refers to the certainty of the Judgment of God upon them he has sworn by himself,
it’s a done deal because of their wickedness.
And so in spite of their proud confidence judgment is certain so much so that not just cities but homes are decimated, if a home has 10 men then they too shall die, and it will be such a calamity that plague occurs and any survivors are forced to burn the dead.
This is a big thing because Israel never cremated people, they buried them, but this is so devastating and so quick and on such a scale that they have to burn the bodies to limit the plague.
The reason for that unusual statement in verse 10 about being told to not mention the name of the Lord is clarified by context! In verse 11 we are told it’s the Lord who is bringing about this judgment so don’t draw attention to yourself!
So in a sense it isn’t hard with a bit of study to see what the Lord is saying through Amos to Judah and Israel.
But have we felt its impact?
It’s dire warning?
They, the Israelites, have the warning given last week in the sermon by Sean on the day of the Lord, God’s wrath being poured out as revealed in chapter 5.
What is harder
is the application to us today,
hard in the sense that we don’t like our comfortableness ruffled.
We don’t like being challenged to repent or get our act together.
They were complacent. So the question is – Are we?
So where do we stand today?
Well --- do we understand the imminent danger Israel and Judah faced?
We would if we heard Sean’s sermon last week on chapter 5 on the day of the Lord. If we heard that sermon we’d see how chapter 6 makes perfect sense. They indeed were complacent. The danger was there and their self-satisfaction blinded them!
Are we likewise blinded?
Were we here last week to hear the sermon on chapter 5?
Or are we one of those that only make it to church every one in three Sundays?
Each one of us here in this predicament has to access our own reasons at this point, because I am not saying “well you should have been here even if you were sick…”
But such a warning as Amos gives convicts us when we weren’t here because we were self indulgent!
I have said it before – do we understand this great family God has called us into here at Bomaderry? Do we understand that we are a body here at Bomaderry?
What are we teaching our children at that level? Are we teaching them to love the church, to love his people?
I stand as much convicted of this as anyone else here today.
I have two grown children and had to discuss with them my failure to teach them by word and actions to love Jesus’ church!
The two eldest have left home and for two years it has been a struggle to find a church and commit to serving others there.
It’s easy to not think this through.
8am and 10 am
I had a warden a number of years ago who had children in Canberra who would frequently visit him and his wife on Sundays and on those occasions they would stay home to greet them. Of course they didn’t come on Saturdays because they had sport and so on, but Sundays suited them. But I talked with John and asked him had he thought about the example he was setting his children! What he was modeling them about his love of God and His people the church. So he thought about it, told his children to let themselves in and they’d be home after church. And you know what? They started arriving early and coming with their parents to church!
Each of us fail often to do as we should
- Sadly we are complacent.
The letters of Jesus to the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 apply to us.
They are a wake up call repent !
Don’t put up with error, with heresy.
Don’t have a form of religion turn up at church on Sundays sometimes when it suits. He the Lord has called you into a family, has made you a body to care and nurture each other to support, encourage, to serve one another here.
But instead of using the letters of the 7 churches in Revelation chapters 2 & 3 I want us to come back to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:33
“seek first the KOG and His righteousness.” Where is our passion for Jesus? Where is our passion for His people?
8am Harold and Murial Doyle couple in their 70’s – frail he dying with weak heart and emphysema .. he was housebound, yet a fervent prayer life for the churches, churches in Sydney, for the gospel, for individuals even beyond their own church. Yet she would try and did make it to evening service frequently to encourage the “young ones”.
10am Again, what are you passionate about? You will see it by what takes precedence what take up most of your time, your focus.
Look at your facebook page – what does it tell you your focus is?
I have a relative who puts up endless pictures of their child. It is something that consumes her! There’s practically nothing else she posts on.
Does your facebook reflect something like that?
I’m just as guilty – I got a new motorbike and was really quick to post a picture of it on my facebook page!
so when I reflected on it I began to talk about God and His Word and what it means to be a Christian! After all, that is really my passion but it is so easy to make it second to other things..
Are you complacent about church and meeting together as His people. You easily let other things distract you.
I went out sat night and was tired.
My kids have sport so we couldn’t make it.
My family came over for lunch so we couldn’t make it.
There’s lots more
I know the excuses I have either had them said to me or I have used them myself.
Sadly we don’t even let the thought creep into our mind that there’s church at night we could fellowship here with.
Perhaps we feel this idea begin to arise in our thinking and we quickly push it down.
Tough words. Well Jesus said tough words in the letters to the 7 churches.
Don’t get shirty with me, we are all challenged by the Words of God in the Scriptures.
If we don’t talk plainly about these things we are educating each other and our children to be passengers on the titanic.
Listen then carefully to Amos last words in this chapter.
In verse 12 Amos says you lot – you’re not foolish when it comes to where you ride your horses, or where you plow your fields for grain,
It’s a bit like you’re not foolish to drive your car down the wrong side of the pacific highway,
and you don’t let your milk go curdled and cheese moldy and then gulf it down anyway.
So why be foolish when there’s danger now!
Wake up and face the sin that brings God’s judgment.
“Seek First and foremost, as the crowning aim of your everyday life, the KOG and His righteousness.”
Amen.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
The Kingdom of God Pt1
The Kingdom of God has been a subject of great interest over the past 15-20 years or so, and a good thing too as it was a subject heard relatively infrequently in the pulpit of many and also lacking in thoughtful discussion amongst many Christians.
That it is so lacking in discussion by Christians is a very sad state of affairs given that the Gospels begin by stating that John the baptist came preaching the nearness of the Kingdom of Heaven Matt 3, and Jesus likewise Matt 4:17.
If this Kingdom figures so strongly why is it that we fail so miserably to understand what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of Heaven / God ? Context must be considered in getting the correct perspective on this Kingdom for He was preaching to Jews whom he expected to understand what it was he was preaching about. One thing for sure, to start with we need to repent of our present day glib comments and preaching from the pulpit about preaching the gospel, or using phraseology such as "let's be on about the Gospel" or "let's be Gospel people" when we refuse to expound the passage of Scripture in front of us that clearly mentions the Kingdom of God.
I notice that one of my favorite preachers Alistair Begg has just done a series on the Kingdom of God, at Truth for Life, however although he says many wonderful things I am afraid his perspective on the Kingdom is definitionally warping the Bibles teaching at that point and neutering the breadth of the Kingdom the Bible puts forth and that Jesus preached. Strong words and I will be held to account for saying them and I will indeed need to justify them. I do so not to malign a great man but to hope that in seeking to understand God's Word iron might sharpen iron. So let me attempt that here.
Alistair is quite correct in saying that
Again he repeats that
This then suggests that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual realm, and it automatically rules out any suggestion as to whether the bible teaches it could have broader application as well. It's to build our theology along the lines of the old children's song "I serve a risen Saviour He's in the world today ... He rules within my heart". The only question is whether the bible means a lot more than that when speaking of the Kingdom of God.
As I see it the bible first of all declares that God is Sovereign there is no area in which He does not rule. secondly that there is a clear teaching of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of God. How one holds these together is indeed the issue. I just don't see the bible advancing the concept that the Kingdom of God is the expression of the sphere of where His rule is gladly accepted.
The answer to understand the Kingdom must begin in Genesis. It is at Creation that man is made by God vice regent over the earth. He is to rule the earth as God's Vice Regent. This pronouncement is made despite God being Divine Personal Sovereign Creator. Man is Created in God's image and given rule over the earth and animals and fishes etc as God's ViceRegent. At the fall we see Adam handing over this realm to Satan, something that Satan still rules over post resurrection and Ascension of Jesus as Paul teaches in Ephesians 6. What is being taught is that Adam has rejected this Vice Regency and it awaits the Messiah to take it back fully.
Theologically this is why the old Protestant Theology used to teach the three offices of Christ, that of Prophet Priest and King. As Prophet he is the True Word of God. As Priest he is the full final Sacrifice for Sin that the Old Testament sacrifices were but a shadow of, and as King He will retake the ViceRegency over Creation that that the first Adam surrendered and the second Adam, Christ himself will restore.
Is this not what the Scriptures are teaching?
Yours in Christ
Gary
That it is so lacking in discussion by Christians is a very sad state of affairs given that the Gospels begin by stating that John the baptist came preaching the nearness of the Kingdom of Heaven Matt 3, and Jesus likewise Matt 4:17.
If this Kingdom figures so strongly why is it that we fail so miserably to understand what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of Heaven / God ? Context must be considered in getting the correct perspective on this Kingdom for He was preaching to Jews whom he expected to understand what it was he was preaching about. One thing for sure, to start with we need to repent of our present day glib comments and preaching from the pulpit about preaching the gospel, or using phraseology such as "let's be on about the Gospel" or "let's be Gospel people" when we refuse to expound the passage of Scripture in front of us that clearly mentions the Kingdom of God.
I notice that one of my favorite preachers Alistair Begg has just done a series on the Kingdom of God, at Truth for Life, however although he says many wonderful things I am afraid his perspective on the Kingdom is definitionally warping the Bibles teaching at that point and neutering the breadth of the Kingdom the Bible puts forth and that Jesus preached. Strong words and I will be held to account for saying them and I will indeed need to justify them. I do so not to malign a great man but to hope that in seeking to understand God's Word iron might sharpen iron. So let me attempt that here.
Alistair is quite correct in saying that
God rules over all areas of life, both spatially and geographicallybut when he adds that
He even rules over even the disobedience of rebellious men and womenhe moves from speaking of the spatial and geographical to the spiritual and moral realms. In this sense I believe he has then evacuated his definition of the Kingdom of God as
representative of the sphere in which God's rule is gladly accepted.Is that not the spiritual realm or the moral realm? Let's leave aside whether biblically man ever gladly accepts God's rule since although positionally he is in Christ and so he has true legal standing before God, but practically he is in need of sanctification, becoming more like Christ being transformed in his mind Romans 12 etc. What Alistair has done is speak correctly of God's Sovereign rule and yet somehow wanted to distinguish from this the realm of the Kingdom of God which is where his rule is gladly accepted. This is in my mind confusing the issue.
Again he repeats that
the Kingdom of God is expressive of the sphere in which men and women submit to His rule.Alistair then goes on to ask whether
your heart is a sphere in which God's Kingly rule is gladly accepted.
As I see it the bible first of all declares that God is Sovereign there is no area in which He does not rule. secondly that there is a clear teaching of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of God. How one holds these together is indeed the issue. I just don't see the bible advancing the concept that the Kingdom of God is the expression of the sphere of where His rule is gladly accepted.
The answer to understand the Kingdom must begin in Genesis. It is at Creation that man is made by God vice regent over the earth. He is to rule the earth as God's Vice Regent. This pronouncement is made despite God being Divine Personal Sovereign Creator. Man is Created in God's image and given rule over the earth and animals and fishes etc as God's ViceRegent. At the fall we see Adam handing over this realm to Satan, something that Satan still rules over post resurrection and Ascension of Jesus as Paul teaches in Ephesians 6. What is being taught is that Adam has rejected this Vice Regency and it awaits the Messiah to take it back fully.
Theologically this is why the old Protestant Theology used to teach the three offices of Christ, that of Prophet Priest and King. As Prophet he is the True Word of God. As Priest he is the full final Sacrifice for Sin that the Old Testament sacrifices were but a shadow of, and as King He will retake the ViceRegency over Creation that that the first Adam surrendered and the second Adam, Christ himself will restore.
Is this not what the Scriptures are teaching?
Yours in Christ
Gary
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The SMH, Gay Marriage and Keith Mascord
Again our secular culture has promoted the Gay Marriage / homosexual agenda in an Opinion piece by Rev Dr Keith Mascord in the Sydney Morning Herald, the 18th July 2012. Keith is no doubt a very intelligent man, and I look forward to reading his book 'Alvin Plantinga and Christian apologetics' 2006. I remember him at Moore when I was a student there. He went far ending up lecturing at Moore in Theology and Pastoral ministry until 2006.
However there is much in the SMH article that I disagree with. Of course I must be magnanimous in that his piece reads as if the editor has cut out significant pieces, as editors are liable to do in newspapers, but even so the thrust of what he argues I still believe is highly questionable and erroneous.
To interact substantially with his piece requires a great deal of study which will take some time as the core problem with it is his hermeneutics which is fashioned after the French Philosopher Paul Ricoeur's "hermeneutics of suspicion". I do not claim to be at all an expert on Ricouer but I do have some pertinent questions in regard to hermeneutics. I certainly think that his assumptions need to be carefully analysed.
In addition, Keith's philosophy of fact is no where stated but he assumes that facts are somehow determinative in themselves to countermand the declared Mind and Will of God as given in Scripture. Thus his problems with the Flood in Noah's day I believe have reasonable explanations and the so called scientific data do not present and impossible hurdle. His whole approach here raises the issue about where Authority and Truth are grounded? Is it in the declared Word of God or in the mind of man? He seems to assume reason as being a legislative Authority instead of a tool to be used by man, and thus commits the same mistake of the Enlightenment. This same problem raises itself again when he addresses Gay Marriage when asserting that "gays are born that way." It is no less problematic when he asserts that [Gay's ] are an example of God's creative handiwork. Again exegetically he would be pushed to justify this from Scripture where the actual opposite is proclaimed, namely that it is sin, just as gluttons, the greedy, thieves and slanders and adulterers etc will not inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9f.
I will soon begin with a short blog on Keith's Hermeneutics as it follows Ricoeur, but for now one other thing needs to be mentioned. As the Opinion piece in the SMH acknowledge, Keith has just published another book called "A Restless Faith:leaving Fundamentalism in a quest for God, 2012". Here I would now make a few observations in regards to this.
To review this one needs to ascertain Keith's use of the term "fundamentalism. Is it the same as used by J Gresham Machen of the Christian fundamentals, or is it more coloured by North American present day fundamentalism which espouses things like 'it is a sin to drink alcohol'? In which sense was Keith a fundamentalist and could Moore Theological College ever be portrayed as following the latter North American type of fundamentalism? Has Keith left orthodoxy in the sense of leaving the self-legislative Authority of Scripture for the Authority of his own mind?
In regard to this book, Rowland Croucher of John Mark Ministries, or Rolly as we used to call him when I was in Melbourne and heard him speak on numerous occasions, delivers an unfair and uninformed diatribe against certain persons in the Sydney Diocese. He makes out that Sydney Anglicans fail to speak the truth in love and fail to ask hard questions.
To quote Rowland:
In Christ,
Gary
However there is much in the SMH article that I disagree with. Of course I must be magnanimous in that his piece reads as if the editor has cut out significant pieces, as editors are liable to do in newspapers, but even so the thrust of what he argues I still believe is highly questionable and erroneous.
To interact substantially with his piece requires a great deal of study which will take some time as the core problem with it is his hermeneutics which is fashioned after the French Philosopher Paul Ricoeur's "hermeneutics of suspicion". I do not claim to be at all an expert on Ricouer but I do have some pertinent questions in regard to hermeneutics. I certainly think that his assumptions need to be carefully analysed.
In addition, Keith's philosophy of fact is no where stated but he assumes that facts are somehow determinative in themselves to countermand the declared Mind and Will of God as given in Scripture. Thus his problems with the Flood in Noah's day I believe have reasonable explanations and the so called scientific data do not present and impossible hurdle. His whole approach here raises the issue about where Authority and Truth are grounded? Is it in the declared Word of God or in the mind of man? He seems to assume reason as being a legislative Authority instead of a tool to be used by man, and thus commits the same mistake of the Enlightenment. This same problem raises itself again when he addresses Gay Marriage when asserting that "gays are born that way." It is no less problematic when he asserts that [Gay's ] are an example of God's creative handiwork. Again exegetically he would be pushed to justify this from Scripture where the actual opposite is proclaimed, namely that it is sin, just as gluttons, the greedy, thieves and slanders and adulterers etc will not inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9f.
I will soon begin with a short blog on Keith's Hermeneutics as it follows Ricoeur, but for now one other thing needs to be mentioned. As the Opinion piece in the SMH acknowledge, Keith has just published another book called "A Restless Faith:leaving Fundamentalism in a quest for God, 2012". Here I would now make a few observations in regards to this.
To review this one needs to ascertain Keith's use of the term "fundamentalism. Is it the same as used by J Gresham Machen of the Christian fundamentals, or is it more coloured by North American present day fundamentalism which espouses things like 'it is a sin to drink alcohol'? In which sense was Keith a fundamentalist and could Moore Theological College ever be portrayed as following the latter North American type of fundamentalism? Has Keith left orthodoxy in the sense of leaving the self-legislative Authority of Scripture for the Authority of his own mind?
In regard to this book, Rowland Croucher of John Mark Ministries, or Rolly as we used to call him when I was in Melbourne and heard him speak on numerous occasions, delivers an unfair and uninformed diatribe against certain persons in the Sydney Diocese. He makes out that Sydney Anglicans fail to speak the truth in love and fail to ask hard questions.
To quote Rowland:
Back to what the Philip Jensenites do with all this: Read the book for the political stuff, whereby lesser qualified-but-’orthodox’ people are preferred over more talented freer thinkers. But, worse, ‘attitudinal’ adjectives like these describe how the protagonists of this sophisticated-but-bigoted ‘conservative evangelicalism’ come across to others: arrogant, combative, opinionated, abrasive, inflexible, deceptive, black-and-white… the list goes on. Rather than there being a commitment to ‘speak the truth (as one sees it) in love’ and humility there has developed an ‘us and them’ fortress mentality, where ‘questioning, doubt or dissent is discouraged and even punished’.Remember Rowland I came from Melbourne and know the Melbourne Diocese scene and Christian scene having been involved from the age of 16 with God Squad and John Smith and Scripture Union and Theos and Melb Uni CU etc etc. It is not only Sydney where some cannot cope with having questions asked, but at the other end of the theological spectrum I have found just as many in Melbourne who fail to use intellectual acumen and question their underlying assumptions. I certainly have not shirked from asking questions in college and in the Diocese as my peers well know. But it has always been in an effort to garner the Truth and treating my brothers as friends and brothers and sisters in Christ. Rowland, we really need to be fairer in this assessment of Sydney. I really need to speak more on this and I will but first I need to read up on Ricoeur.
In Christ,
Gary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
