The Vision Of Obadiah

Obadiah, as you may well know was an Old Testament Prophet.  His prophecy was spoken mainly to Edom, but Israel would have also been counted among his audience.

We don’t know who Obadiah was, there are anywhere from 11 to 13 ‘Obadiahs’ in the OT, but most don’t believe that Obadiah the prophet can be identified with any one of these ‘Obadiahs’.  So here is someone we know virtually nothing about, he doesn’t tell us who his father was or even who the king of Judah or Israel was at the time he announced his prophecy.  But here is what we do know, Obadiah had a vision from God (Obadiah 1).

Obadiah just gets down to business.  “Who I am isn’t important, but what is important is that God has spoken to me and shown me His truth.”  The first words of Obadiah are simply, “The vision of Obadiah.”  They are followed immediately by, “Thus says the Lord GOD…”  Obadiah’s few words give us a glimpse of what he understands his role to be.  He is the eyes and ears of Israel and Judah.  God has shown him something glorious and has spoken truth to him.  He is adamant about the fact that these are the words of God and not his own invention.  In fact, three more times in Obadiah’s short prophecy (4, 8, 18) he lets us know that it is God who speaks and not himself.

So here’s the point, Obadiah is often neglected, probably because of it’s length, the uncertainty concerning the author, and because the bulk of the prophecy is directed at Edom and not God’s people.  But here is the main reason Obadiah should not be neglected, God has spoken.  These are God’s words, and they too, are “…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16).

So, I’m going to do my part by blogging through Obadiah.  I also reently preached a one sermon overview of Obadiah’s prophecy.  So if you want to hear that , here’s the link: The Older Shall Serve The Younger: Brother Edom, Election, and the Vindication of God’s Kingdom.  Sorry about the sound quality, our recorder messed up.

If you want to hear something shorter, but better, here’s a link to John Piper’s overview of Obadiah: Eagle Edom Will Come Down.

If that’s not enough for you, then listen to Mark Dever’s message: Does God Have Enemies? The Message of Obadiah.

Dave Dravecky Interview

Desiring God recently interviewed former San Francisco Giants pitcher, Dave Dravecky.

For those who may not know who Dave Dravecky is, here’s a short recap:

Dave Dravecky was a Major League Baseball pitcher who was diagnosed with cancer in his arm.  The doctor’s told him he would never pitch again.  In 1991, after ten months, surgery, and other cancer treatments, Dave returned to the Giants to pitch against the Reds.  The Giants won 4-3.  Later that season Dave broke his arm while pitching in Montreal.  The doctors rediscovered cancer in his arm, and after surgery and radiation, made the difficult decision to amputate Dave’s arm.

The Desiring God interview focuses on how God used those months and cancer to transform Dave’s life from self-centeredness to God-centeredness.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Desiring God YouTube Broadcast Channel. 

Article 1 of the Baptist Faith & Message

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Clearly based upon the Reformation principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’, the Scriptures are declared to be the ‘supreme standard’ by which our religious practice, both private and corporate, should be tried.  This does not exclude the use of creeds.  Instead, it prohibits elevating a creed to the level of Scripture.  This makes sense, because the BF&M itself is a creed.  It is a statement of belief.  This statement of belief is to be tried by Scripture.  Where it is found to be contrary to Scripture, it is to be revised.  Where it goes beyond the testimony of Scripture, it is to be refined.  Where it falls short of the testimony of Scripture, it is to be reinforced.

This is in keeping with the second of the five statements concerning the use and nature of confessions of faith in Baptist history found in the Preamble to the BF&M, “That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.”

The ‘editors’ of the BF&M knew that the only infallible and inerrant source of authority for the Church is the Scriptures.  Therefore, they allowed for the fact of fallibility and errancy on their own part in the BF&M, but not in the Scriptures.  The BF&M is to be judged by the Scriptures.  So, at the end of each article, there is a list of Scripture proofs to show why the BF&M says what it says at each article.

As it pertains to the Scriptures, the BF&M is in the conservative tradition concerning the  Inspiration, Inerrancy, Sufficiency, and Christocentricity of the Scriptures.

1. Inspiration. Scripture is ‘God-breathed’.  It is the very Word of God Himself.  God spoke through men by His Holy Spirit in such a way that what they wrote was both God’s words and their own words.  Each writer has his own peculiar style and vocabulary, but the words they wrote, although their own, are also the words of God.  The doctrine upheld in the BF&M is the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration.  ‘…all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”  It is without mixture of error.
2. Inerrancy.  Since Scripture is God’s words, it are without error.  They cannot lie.  It is true that Scripture does not contain everything that is necessary to know for daily living (such as, how to drive or home maintenance).  But upon every subject that Scripture do speak upon, we believe Scripture to be true and man to be fallible.
3. Sufficiency.  Since Scriptures is God’s word and without error, they are all we need for salvation, faith, and practice in our religious lives.  The Scriptures will be the judge of our actions in the future, and as such, have the authority to order our lives here and now.
4. Christocentricity.  Scripture is “…a testimony to Christ…”, as He is the “focus of divine revelation”.  All Scripture points us to Christ.  From Genesis to Revelation, He is the focus, subject, and goal of divine revelation.

Christianity is a ‘revealed’ religion.  It is not a religion of man seeking after God, but a religion of God who seeks after man.  That is the perspective of Scripture.  God is calling out to man, “Where are you?”  Not that He doesn’t know, but by asking He is revealing Himself and drawing us to Himself.  This is God’s purpose in giving us Scripture.  He calls to us and then shows us where we are by showing us where He is.  In Scripture God reveals Himself high and Holy, reveals us as sinful and lowly, and then points us to Christ for salvation.  That is the BF&M teaching on the Scriptures.

Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The Internet Monk-Conclusion, Concluded

I feel a bit like a Triablogger about now, except they’re smart and I’m not. But I have been wordy. I promise to wrap it up now, even if I don’t finish, this is the last post in this series.
Before I finish up, I wanted to let you know why I have stayed up late at night working on these posts. There are basically three reasons.

1. I believe Michael Spencer is a Christian, confused, but a Christian. I am under obligation by the Law of Christ to watch out for him. (James 5:19-20, Galatians 6:1-2, Jude 22-23, 2 Corinthians 13:11)
2. I am obligated to watch over other Christians who may read Spencer’s essay.
3. I know Christians who have read Spencer’s essay.

Now, back to the bidness at hand…

Though I really didn’t have the time or space to really flesh it out, I think it is abundantly clear that the N. T. authors and the Early Church Fathers believed in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. In other words, they believed that God actually spoke His words by the Holy Spirit through the writers of Scripture. And this included not only the O. T., but, as we have seen in Peter’s example of Paul, (2 Peter 3:15,16) the N. T. writings as well.
B. B. Warfield put this point rather nicely in his essay titled The Inspiration Of The Bible,

This church-doctrine of inspiration differs from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people of God from the first planting of the church until today; in that it is not a protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but from the beginning has been the church’s constant and abiding conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed to her keeping. It is certainly a most impressive fact, – this well-defined, aboriginal, stable doctrine of the church as to the nature and trustworthiness of the Scriptures of God, which confronts with its gentle but steady persistence of affirmation all the theories of inspiration which the restless energy of unbelieving and half-believing speculation has been able to invent in this agitated nineteenth century of ours. Surely the seeker after the truth in the matter of the inspiration of the Bible may well take this church-doctrine as his starting-point.

After quoting various Fathers of the Church he continues,

Of course the church has not failed to bring this, her vital faith in the divine trustworthiness of the Scripture word, to formal expression in her solemn creeds. The simple faith of the Christian people is also the confessional doctrine of the Christian churches. The assumption of the divine authority of the scriptural teaching underlies all the credal statements of the church; all of which are formally based upon the Scriptures. And from the beginning, it finds more or less full expression in them. Already, in some of the formulas of faith which underlie the Apostles’ Creed itself, we meet with the phrase “according to the Scriptures” as validating the items of belief; while in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, amid the meagre clauses outlining only what is essential to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, place is given to the declaration that He is to be found speaking in the prophets – “who spake by the prophets.” It was in conscious dependence upon the immemorial teaching of the church that the Council of Trent defined it as of faith in the Church of Rome, that God is the author of Scripture, – a declaration which has been repeated in our own day by the Vatican Council, with such full explanations as are included in these rich words: “The church holds” the books of the Old and New Testaments, “to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”

The whole essay is well worth reading and rather hard to quote from, as it is all very quotable.

Suffice it to say then, that the testimony of the Church, from Jesus to Warfield, has consistently been to affirm the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. To stray from this dogmatic assertion of the Church is to stray from Jesus Christ who believed and taught it.

So what does all this have to do with infallibility and inerrancy? I know I’m compromising here, but I think the Catholics actually got this one right. (Exept for the part about oral tradition being inspired as well.) While asserting that the Scriptures were indeed written by man, and being approved by man, they also affirm that the Scriptures are without ‘admixture of error’. The fact of inerrancy for Vatican I lies in the fact that the Scriptures were written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which in turn means, ‘they have God for their author’. The Scriptures are not the Word of God because man approved them, nor are they the Word of God because they are inerrant. Instead, man approved the Scriptures and the Scriptures are inerrant because they are the Word of God.

If inspiration does in fact mean ‘God-breathed’, as we found Paul to believe in 2 Timothy 3, then it must necessarily follow that these words that ‘God breathed’ are without error. It cannot be any other way. God cannot lie. Either he did inspire the whole Bible, as Paul asserts that he did, “All Scripture is breathed out by God…”, he says, therefore we must recognize it as such, regarding it to be “…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) It doesn’t get any clearer than that, folks.

Now, the obvious objection to this is, “Yes, but couldn’t those verses also mean that some of the O. T. was actually inspired, and that only those Scriptures that were breathed out by God are inerrant, and therefore, profitable for teaching, etc.?” This verse taken alone could certainly be translated to say something similar to that. But if we take it in the context of Paul’s staements to Timothy, then the obvious response is, “No.” Those verses cannot possibly mean that, and here is why.
What does Paul mean when he says, “…sacred writings…” (hiera grammata), in verse 15? Is he referring to only parts of the O. T., or to the O. T. as a whole? Actually, neither. The emphasis in verse 15 is on the letters (not correspondence, but the actual characters) of the text. Paul shows this emphasis in Galatians when he bases his interpretation of God’s promise to Abraham on a single letter. (Galatians 3:16) Paul is reminding Timothy of the fact that he actually leaned the Scriptures letter by letter.
If this is the case, that Paul is referring to the actual letters of Scripture in verse fifteen, then in verse 16, the obvious emphasis is the ‘God-breathing’ of the O. T. as a whole, “All scripture…” (pāsa graphē).
Paul affirms a literal, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15. In verse 16 he affirms a plenary inspiration. Paul is teaching Timothy that every letter of the whole O. T. is ‘God-breathed’.

Now if Paul believes that every word is ‘God-breathed’, is it any mystery whether he would believe that it is therefore inerrant? Obviously he does believe that Scripture is inerrant. (Titus 1:1-2) So the question that we must answer then is this…Do we believe Paul? If Paul was wrong about the verbal, plenary, inspiration of Scripture, then was he wrong about justification? or the person of Christ? or the resurrection? (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)

I’m sticking with Jesus, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Bible’s own testimony of itself on this one.

So, how do we sum up this series?
Well, for Michael Spencer and others like him, we must issue a call for them to turn from their faulty view of Scripture to the true, holy, Apostolic, and Universal (See? I didn’t say Catholic!) faith in the Scriptures as the Inerrant, Infallible Word of God.
For those of you wondering, “How do I interpret Scripture then?” Let me give you the first step. Interpret Scripture as though it is God speaking…because that is exactly what Scripture is. God speaking to fallen humanity. And the second step is, obey what you understand. God will not reveal any other truths in Scripture if you are not faithful in the truths you know. The first truth we learn is the Gospel. God created you for his glory, you sinned, God sent his Son in to the world who lived a perfect life, and was crucified for your sin. God raised him from the dead giving us the assurance that he is the coming judge of the world, and so he demands that you turn from your sinful acts and take him as your only hope for life. Learn and obey that, and then there will be more truth for you to learn and obey. But don’t expect to learn truth if you are not willing to obey.
Finally, for the rest of you, remember that God has spoken, and you need to hear what he is saying.

Theology for Doxology

Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The Internet Monk-Conclusion, Part The First

What Does Inspiration Really Mean?

‘Inspiration’ is a widely used term in various settings. We speak of writers being inspired to write, artists are inspired to draw, mold, or sculpt, musicians are inspired to write music, and architects are inspired to design buildings. In all of these cases ‘inspired’ means pretty much the same. They were motivated to do their job, by some influence upon them.

Then there are those who are ‘inspired’ by books, art, music, or architecture. When the word is used in this sense it means that the reader, art critic, listener, or ‘beholder’ (building codes inspector?) have had their emotions stirred positively by whichever object it is they are admiring at that time.

While the Bible can rightly be said to be inspired in both these senses, to stop at this would do injustice to the Biblical doctrine of ‘Inspiration’. The definition of the Biblical doctrine of Inspiration is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17)

Now, I say that this is a Biblical doctrine since I believe it is a doctrine clearly taught in Scripture, primarily because, Scripture actually claims inspiration for itself in the verses we just read!
(Well, Scripture and Clarence Larkin’s book titled, The Greatest Book on Dispensational Truth in the World both claim inspiration. Seriously, that’s the title. And seriously, the introduction claims that the Holy Spirit had a hand and helping Larkin draw the pictures, otherwise, how can we explain the fact that the drawings are so perfect? D. J., could you get me the exact quote?)
So just the fact that the Bible claims inspiration for itself is not proof in and of itself that it is inspired. Otherwise, how many other books would we have to recognize as inspired?
No, the definition goes deeper than just a claim. The word Paul uses is ‘θεοπνευστος’, transliterated ‘theopneustos’. This is a compound word combining the Greek words for God, ‘θεός’, and breath, ‘πνέω’. A literal translation would be God-breathed. This of course, follows the words, ‘All Scripture’. The Greek word for Scripture here is, ‘γραφή’, literally translated, ‘writing’. The writing that Paul is discussing with Timothy is, in the context, the ‘sacred writings’;

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2Ti 3:14-15)

‘Sacred writings’ obviously refers to the Old Testament that Timothy had been taught as a child. So Paul, is saying that the Old Testament is ‘God-breathed’. What does that mean? Clearly this word, ‘theopneustos’, is referring to God and his breath. LEt’s have a little science experiment. We know that sounds that we as humans make come from something called ‘vocal chords’. What we may not know is that the way vocal chords make sound is by vibrating as air passes over them. So what I want you to do now is hold your hand about an inch from your mouth and say this, “Scripture is God-breathed.” Did you feel that? As you spoke, you exhaled air. You probably felt five breaths, varying in length and intensity, against your hand.
O. K. Science class is over. Paul says that the Old Testament is God-breathed because he has in his mind the idea of God speaking.
So, why doesn’t Paul just say, “Timothy, the Old Testament that you studied from your youth is in actuality the very words of God?” Well, because Paul has something else on his mind as well. The words for breath and spirit, are very closely related in most languages. Think about it, our English words, ‘respiration’, ‘inspiration’, and ‘spirit’ all come from the same root. Paul has in mind the activity of the Holy Spirit when he tells Timothy that, “All scripture is God-breathed.”
This puts Paul in accordance with what the other Biblical writers taught about the work of the Holy Spirit in the process of inspiration.
In Genesis 1:2, where we are told that the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters, the Hebrew word for ‘Spirit’ can also be translated ‘breath’. The Septuagint (the Greek translation, of the Hebrew O. T., used by the Apostles) uses the word ‘πνεῦμα’, or, ‘pneuma’ for ‘Spirit’ in Genesis 1:2. This word can also be translated as ‘breath’. The point that I am trying to make by pointing this out is that Paul, by saying that Scripture is God-breathed, is also saying that the Spirit is the agent by which God spoke his words to man.
Again, this is not unique to Paul, Peter says the same,

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2Pe 1:21)
“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. (Act 1:16)

After Peter and John are released by the Sanhedrin, they go and tell their friends what God had done. Their friends respond,

And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? (Act 4:24-25)

The writer of Hebrews affirms the Holy Spirit’s role in the inspiration of the O. T. as well,

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.’ As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” (Heb 3:7-11)
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” (Heb 10:15-17)

In Revelation, when Jesus addresses the seven churches, he tells them to, “…hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Rev, 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22)
I think we have established that Paul believed that the O. T. was inspired, and by inspired he means that the, Scriptures, or the O. T. is the breath, or, words of God, and that these words were given by the Spirit. The other N. T. writers affirm the same.
But in 2 Peter, Peter includes Paul’s writings in the category of ‘Scripture’;

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2Pe 3:15-16)

The N. T. writers seem to recognize their own writings as on par with the O. T. writings as well.

Before we start down this road, I think it is helpful that we recognize that the Old Testament prophets believed they were inspired. When they use such language as, “The Word of the Lord came…”, “Thus says the Lord…”, or other similar phrases, they are confessing that the words that they spoke or wrote down were not their own words, but the words of God. They were claiming inspiration.
Likewise, when Moses gave the Law, he understood that these were not just a bunch of rules that he had made up, but that he was speaking and writing the words of God.

So, now, we come to the New Testament, and read the words of Paul;

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

When we read these words we begin to recognize that Paul is claiming inspiration for himself. He is claiming that his writings are just as inspired as any of the Old Testament prophets writings were.
Next, we see that Paul placed his own teaching on par with the teaching of Christ about divorce;

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (1Co 7:10-12)

In verse 10, Paul summarizes Jesus’ teaching on divorce. He says, “the Lord says this”. Then, beginning in verse twelve, Paul gives his teaching, which is complimentary to Jesus’ teaching, concerning divorce. In verse twelve he says, “I say this”.
Should we understand Paul to be saying that this is something to be taken as a lesser teaching that of Christ, and therefore that we can ignore Paul’s teaching if we like? Or, is he simply stating the fact that Jesus had actually said these words and then separating the quote from Jesus form his own words which he prefaces by saying, “This is what I say”?
I think the latter interpretation is more faithful to the text. If it is, then Paul is claiming to be so inspired that his teachings are equal with Christ’s teachings.

Concerning the other writers of the New Testament, first of all, we have the words of Jesus concerning the inspiration of the Apostles. He says,

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Act 1:8)

So this is Jesus telling His Apostles that they were to be His mouthpieces in all the world. If they believed Jesus, then they also must have believed that they were speaking and writing the words of Christ. They must have known that they were inspired.

The writer of Hebrews seems to claim to be a spokesperson for Christ, and therefore, inspired, in the first two verse of Hebrews, although later, in chapter 2, he seems to say that he is not an Apostle,

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world….
Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Heb 1:1-2, 2:1-4)

The general tone of James’ letter seems to be of someone who is writing with authority, making several commands throughout the letter, with no appeal to outside sources for their validity, however, he makes no claim of inspiration.

Peter claims inspiration rather explicitly,

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2Pe 1:16-21)

John claims to be a ‘witness’ of Christ (when he says “we..testify”, ‘testify’ means to ‘bear witness),

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life– the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us– that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1Jo 1:1-3)

John is even more explicit when he tells us that he heard the voice of Christ telling him to write the things that he saw in a Spirit-induced vision in a book,

I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” (Rev 1:9-11)

It has been theorized that Jude was claiming to be inspired when he said that his mind was changed about the topic of his letter (the theory being that the Holy Spirit moved upon him to write the words that he ended up writing),

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3)

In any case, I think that there is conclusive evidence to point to the fact that most of the writers of the New Testament believed that they were inspired.

But as I have already pointed out, the fact that they claim to speak God’s words really doesn’t prove that they are speaking God’s words. It does however call their character into question. Were they deceived? Were they lying? Were they hearing voices? Or were they telling the truth from a sound mind? If they were deceived, lying, or hearing voices, then we really can’t put much stock in what they have to say. But if they were telling the truth from a sound mind, then we have reason to believe that they truly were inspired, and that they were truly speaking God’s words.

The testimony of the Early Church is that both the O. T. and the N. T. are God’s words.

The one sent from men is a liar; the one sent through man tells the truth, as God too, who is truthful, may send truth through men. The one, therefore, who is sent not from men or through man but through God derives his truthfulness from the One who makes truthful even those sent through men.-Augustine, Epistle to the Galatians.

We have learned the plan of our salvation from no one else other than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us. For they did at one time proclaim the gospel in public. And, at a later period, by the will of God, they handed the gospel down to us in the Scriptures-to be the ‘ground and pillar of our faith.’-Irenaus, Against Heresies.

Then, if God had been unable to make all things of nothing, the Scripture could not possibly have added that He had made all things of nothing: (there could have been no room for such a statement,) but it must by all means have informed us that He had made all things out of Matter, since Matter must have been the source; because the one case was quite to be understood, if it were not actually stated, whereas the other case would be left in doubt unless it were stated.
If therefore God, when producing other things out of things which had been already made, indicates them by the prophet, and tells us what He has produced from such and such a source (although we might ourselves suppose them to be derived from some source or other, short of nothing; since there had already been created certain things, from which they might easily seem to have been made); if the Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that we might know from what everything was produced, would He not in like manner have kept us well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating to us what it was that He made them of, if their original consisted of any material substance, so that the more He seemed to have made them of nothing, the less in fact was there as yet made, from which He could appear to have made them? Therefore, just as He shows us the original out of which He drew such things as were derived from a given source, so also with regard to those things of which He does not point out whence He produced them, He confirms (by that silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. “In the beginning,” then, “God made the heaven and the earth.” I revere the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.-Tertullian, Against Hermogenes.

It was fit and proper, therefore, that the Holy Ghost should no longer withhold the effusions of His gracious light upon these inspired writings, in order that they might be able to disseminate the seeds of truth with no admixture of heretical subtleties, and pluck out from it their tares. He has accordingly now dispersed all the perplexities of the past, and their self-chosen allegories and parables, by the open and perspicuous explanation of the entire mystery, through the new prophecy, which descends in copious streams from the Paraclete. If you will only draw water from His fountains, you will never thirst for other doctrine: no feverish craving after subtle questions will again consume you; but by drinking in evermore the resurrection of the flesh, you will be satisfied with the refreshing draughts.-Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh.

…and that we might receive the teaching concerning the transcendent nature of the Deity which is given to us, as it were, “through a glass darkly” from the older Scriptures,—from the Law, and the Prophets, and the Sapiential Books, as an evidence of the truth fully revealed to us, reverently accepting the meaning of the things which have been spoken, so as to accord in the faith set forth by the Lord of the whole Scripture, which faith we guard as we received it, word for word, in purity, without falsification, judging even a slight divergence from the words delivered to us an extreme blasphemy and impiety.-Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius.

Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.-Theophilus, To Autolycus, Book Three.

I’ll finish the conclusion tomorrow. I’ve still got to talk about infallibility and inerrancy. I’m also going to try and tell you why I spent all this inspiration stuff.

Theology for Doxology

Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The Internet Monk-Part Three

Part the Third, How do I Interpret the Bible?

Ever think of the Bible as….a grocery store? I worked at grocery stores for a long time. People come into the store with their grocery lists, and they know what they are looking for. They need some bananas, ice cream, a case of root beer, a head of lettuce. They run up and down the aisles finding what they want, find everything on the list, check out and go home.

That’s how evangelicals increasingly approach the Bible. They have a list of what they need. Parenting principles. Verses for healing. Advice for marriage. Rules for children. Stories to inspire. Challenges to give. Information on Heaven. Predictions of the future. We run into the “Bible” looking for these things, and when we find them, we leave.

This “grocery store” view of the Bible is built on the idea that the Bible is an inspired “library” of true information. A “magic book” as some have called it, where passages contain unquestionable information and authoritative rules. This approach to the Bible is flattering to the human ability to catalog information, and it is used in many churches to build confidence that the use of scripture puts a person on a foundation of absolute certainty.-Michael Spencer

Where to begin? There is some good stuff in this section. Too many times we look at the Bible as a grocery list. That’s true. Not that we shouldn’t sometimes. But our focus in Biblical Interpretation should not primarily be, “What does the Bible say about ——?”
I suspect that I say this for a different reason than Spencer. Spencer says the ‘grocery list’ method is improper because the Bible isn’t a ‘library’ of true information. Based on what Spencer has already said in this essay, it’s pretty clear what he means. The Bible contains errors, and should not be trusted as being infallibly true.
I say that the ‘grocery list’ method isn’t proper because God did not write an encyclopedia. The Bible isn’t arranged by topic. It is a progressive revelation of God. This revelation of God is, however, built upon a foundation of true words from God. Listen, if I can’t trust what the God has said in his Word about the origins of the universe, or the history of the exodus, or the even the virgin birth, how is it that I can trust what he has said about himself?

Spencer then goes on to use the analogy of a cake, and the Bible contains the ingredients for the cake.

All these ingredients, of course, are the contents of the Bible. The eggs are Genesis 1-3. The flour is Leviticus. The salt is Proverbs. The sugar is Psalms. And so on. These are good ingredients. Crucial ingredients. Now…we need to ask an important question: What are we baking?

The cake the Bible is baking is Jesus Christ, the mediator of our salvation, and the Gospel that comes in him.-M. S.

The problem with Spencer’s analogy is that it does exactly what he has set out not to do. The Bible has become a ‘grocery list’ that we carry to the store and pick out the right ingredients in order to make our cake. Only in this case, our cake is Jesus. Spencer tries to use this to show us that he really does believe the Bible is inspired, but the fact of the matter is that when he has denied inerrancy, he has also denied inspiration. God has spoken, he has used true words, and he has done this to reveal himself. The final Word of revelation comes in the incarnation of the Logos, the eternal Son of God. (Heb. 1:1-3)

One of the first times I brought out my thoughts on this approach to the Bible was at a seminar for local pastors, where I was asked to teach Genesis 1-11. I am sure most of the men in the room were ready for the usual approach to Genesis, with lots of hat-tipping to the creation-evolution controversy and explanations for how these events could “really happen.”

Instead, I said that Jesus was the one for whom and by whom all things were made. I said Jesus was in the beginning with God. I said we are made in God’s image, in a way similar to the way Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that this is why Jesus is made like us so he can save us. I said Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. I said Jesus loves us when we are cast out of paradise, and he left paradise for us. I said Abel was a picture of Jesus, and his offering a portrait of faith. I said the ark was Christ, and the flood the wrath of God Jesus endured for our sake. And so on, for four hours.

At the end, one man said I was trying to be “provocative.” Let’s hope so, because the grocery store approach to Genesis is boring me and turns preachers of the Gospel into lecturers in creation science.-M. S.

This really resonates with me. Christ is the reason for creation. Too many times I have heard ‘Christ-less’ sermons preached form these passages, and I appreciate the fat that Spencer desires to make Christ the focus of his preaching. My problem with his statements here, are with the fact that he seems to be unwilling to let Scripture say what it says. How can I pretend to preach Genesis 1-3 and not mention the controversies surrounding the creation narrative? These are the opening passages of Scripture and the point at which the Scriptures are under attack in our day. I’m just wondering why we can’t preach both the fact that the Bible says that God created the world in six days and at the same time preach Christ!?

Why can’t we preach Christ Jesus from Genesis? Why do we talk about the length of days and the location of Eden and whether women should submit, when the whole story exists to send us to Jesus to be clothed in his righteousness? Do we really think God wanted us to have a book of inspired science and trivia? I need a savior, not a set of facts. As Robert Capon says, if the world could be saved by good advice, it would have been saved ten minutes after Moses came back from Mt. Sinai.-M. S.

The logic here is truly dizzying. “I need a savior, not a set of facts.” The reason you need a Savior is that Genesis 1-3 are true. Do you really not see the connection? God created us from dust to worship him, and in Adam we all rebelled. We deserve death, but God promises a Savior. You can’t accept the last part as true if you are unwilling to accept the whole as truth.

On Judges.

Supporters of the traditional view of Biblical inerrancy find themselves in a quandary with an issue like the terrible violence in the Old Testament book of Judges. The quandary comes when the text must bear the burden of God-spokenness. How do we understand the inspiration of a book that reports- even advocates- violence that is clearly at odds with Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount.

What we see in Judges isn’t to be harmonized with Christ, so that Christ becomes a warrior-judge defeating the “pagans.” It is this kind of sinful violence that will be judged by Christ, when his Kingdom beats all swords into plowshares, and brings God’s peace to the universe.-M. S.

First, Inerrancy has no such quandary. There is no reason we can’t believe that Judges is true history without saying that God affirmed everything that happened in the book. Inerrancy is not to say that God affirms sin just because an otherwise righteous person may have committed it.
Second, over and over in Judges the writer says that God raised up judges to deliver Israel from their enemies. We’ve either got to accept that writer is being truthful in those statements and in the rest of the history of the judges, or we’ve got to dismiss him as a liar and we know what that does to the trustworthiness of the history related in Judges.
Third, Christ is a warrior-judge who will deliver his people from their oppressors. He comes to judge the world.

On Homosexuality.

Primarily, my approach would say that when sin is compared to the law of God, we see it differently than when it stands next to the grace of God in Christ. Let’s use the thief on the cross as an example. The thief was guilty of breaking the law, and was being punished as a result. Compared to the law, the soul that sinned was dying. On the other hand, coming to Christ who is dying for sinners, this man is a believer welcomed into the gates of paradise. His sin is forgiven by Jesus, and not even mentioned. This is the same lesson of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Compared to the law, sin is a large matter. Compared to Christ, it is overwhelmed in grace.-M .S.

I agree with a lot of what Spencer says about homosexuality. It is very clear that homosexuality is sin, but it is equally clear that adultery, lying, disobedience to parents, etc. are sin as well. And Christ can cover it all. He died for it all.
But then again, the biblical position on homosexuality is under attack, in ways that adultery, disobedience to parents and lying are not. Everyone recognizes these to be sin. The adulterer knows he/she is sinning, that sin may be justified in their minds, but they still recognize it as immoral behavior and many times that is exactly what entices them about it. But in homosexuals we see a different trend. They demand that their behavior be accepted as normal and moral. They have made great strides in even evangelical churches pushing this agenda. It is only right that Christians proclaim the truth about homosexuality more loudly at this time. It is sin. It is only when we preach this that we can offer homosexuals hope for their souls through Jesus.

Next, The Conclusion: What Does Inspiration Really Mean?

Theology for Doxology

Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The Internet Monk-Part Two

Part the Second, How Can I Say The Bible Is Inspired?

This is a very good question. Since it is apparent that Spencer does not affirm inspiration in the same way that most evangelicals would, I come away confused by his desire to use the word to describe his view of Scripture. Let’s see what he has to say.

Let’s pause and take stock. I’ve said the Bible is a thoroughly human book in which human beings, involved in an experience they identify as God, select a “canon” of literature that contains a conversation about this experience of God. It is important, however, that I put forward some idea of inspiration, since orthodox Christianity requires some way to understand how God speaks in the Bible.-M. S.

Spencer’s summary of what the Bible is precludes any understanding that it is actually the words of God. He says the Bible is a thoroughly human book. With that part of the statement I can agree, and would fight for if I had read it out of context. The Bible is thoroughly human. Every one of the author’s were humans. They all wrote with their own style and used their own words, yet every on of those words are God’s words. But continuing on in Spencer’s essay, he clarifies what he means when he says that the Bible is a thoroughly human book. Essentially, he says the Bible is man’s attempt to find God. They were involved in an experience (‘God’) and they desired to express their own experience. This subjective view of Scripture cannot logically produce any objective truth. Which is going to lead Spencer down another dark road later in this section.
He states his reasoning for including a doctrine of inspiration, ‘orthodox Christianity requires some way to understand how God speaks in the Bible.’ I have two problems with this. First, Spenser appeals to an outside source for how we should view the Bible, namely, orthodox Christianity. In reality, our view of Scripture is shaped by Scripture itself, and this view produces orthodoxy.
Read any book. The way to understand the book lies in the book itself, not any outside source. Any outside source (discussion, essay, book report) about the book is based upon the book itself and not upon any other source (although other sources may be cited). As more people read the book and write about the book, more resources for better understanding are available and should be used, but these do not change the fact that the sources themselves are based upon the book. (On a side note: I doubt that Spencer would accept this illustration. His view of literature of all kinds is that it meaning in the literature is open for interpretation by the reader, and the readers interpretation may not be the author’s meaning.)
Scripture produces orthodoxy precisely by requiring a certain view of itself. In this case, Scripture claims to be ‘breathed out by God’. (2 Tim. 3:16) We must view Scripture as if it is the breath, or words, of God, even if it we do not believe that it is (I do). There is no other way to understand Scripture. If we do not seek to understand Scripture on it’s own terms, then there is no way to fully understand it.

From the beginning of the essay, Spencer has compared a collection of books called, the Great Books of the Western World, with the Bible. In both, he says, a conversation can be heard. He now contrasts the conversation in these books with the Biblical conversation…

The original Great Books essays stated that the conversation occurs without any set dogma or point of view. The student of the Great Books is free to listen to the conversation and come to any number of conclusions about God, government, reality or human nature.

The Biblical conversation is different. While the reader is free to draw conclusions, the conversation itself is compelling in its conclusions. Because this conversation continues to a point of hearing a unique Word from God, there are limits to what we may legitimately say is being said. The proper understanding of language, culture, history and text is part of this limitation. The Biblical conversation allows great freedom, but there is also agreement that when this conversation is heard honestly, it has a common stream and focus at its center. A stream and focus that reveals a particular God, his ways, his character, his message and ultimately, his Son.

Spencer, to his credit, seems to imply that he believes that there are certain non-negotiables, or’ dogmas’, in Scripture that are not open for interpretation. But to his discredit, it is only those parts which he believes point us to Christ. So his view of Scripture is a little different than his post-modern view of other books. For Spencer, while meaning is normally found in the eyes of the beholder, sometimes this is not the case. This inconsistent view is just another one of the problems with Spencer’s method. Who discerns the difference between the dogma and the non-essential? Spencer will answer this later.

Of course, we should have modest expectations of agreement on this kind of unity in the Bible, and any community of believers that claims to hear a detailed scheme of belief in the Bible is probably listening to some parts of the conversation differently than other communities. Still, even with the diversity of conclusions we will find in listening, the Christian communities that lay hold of this conversation as “their own,” have considerable broad agreement in what the conversation communicates. On the focus of that conversation, there is no contention.

At this point I want to separate myself from any kind of Christianity that sees the Bible as teaching a highly sectarian view of Christianity at the exclusion of other views. I am not shocked that Catholics and Lutherans find the words “This is my body” to mean something different than Baptists do. I am distraught that any of these parties would fail to see that we are all listening to the same texts, and disagreement isn’t because some of us are all that much smarter or better listeners. It’s because we listen to different parts of the conversation, in different ways, and we are allowed to do so.

I love confessionalism. But I despise confessionalism that doesn’t understand and respect what other confessional communities are doing in listening to the conversation. This is why, for instance, I am not personally torn up by the infant baptism debate. Listening to the Biblical conversation, there appear to be two completely plausible conclusions on the subject. I have convictions on which is right, but I have no conviction that the other fellow is so wrong that I can treat him as if he isn’t approaching the same text as I am, with the same amount of worthy respect and reverence. M. S.

This is the dark road that I mentioned earlier. For Spencer, everybody is right. Lutherans, Catholics, and Protestants are all right about body and blood of Christ in Communion. Baptists and Presbyterians are both right about Baptism. Never mind that these all contradict one another. They are all right because that is how each tradition interprets them differently. This is the most confusing part of Spencer’s essay for me. On the one hand, he loves confessionalism, but on the other, he despises the fact that the confessions are adhered to. So, while I adhere to the LCBF as the confession of choice, I must also view the WCF as equally valid. Granted, the two are very similar, but if I hold the WCF to be as equally valid as the LBCF, I am what James calls a double-minded man, unstable in all my ways. (James 1:8)
This road leads to an ecumenical understanding of Scripture, where we are all free to believe what we want, and at the same time, we can all be right. Contrary to Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:21, everyone who says, “Lord, Lord”, does get to enter heaven!

Next, Spencer makes a few claims. He put these in bold and they pretty well summarize his view of Scripture.

Scripture is inspired if God has, on some level and in some way, directed its production so that it says what he wants it to say.-M. S.

Yes, he has directed its production and it does say what he wants it to say. My difference with Spencer on this point is that I say every word is exactly what he wanted to say. He wanted to tell about how he created the world in six days, and he did. He wanted to tell about how Adam and Eve sinned, how he destroyed the earth with a flood, confused the languages, called Abraham out of Ur, promised a Messiah, delivered Israel out of Egypt, gave Israel the promised land, and sent his Son into the world to be the sacrifice for sinners, and he did. He wanted to reveal himself by his own words and he did. Every word is his word, every promise his promise, and every book his book.

Only the activity of God in bringing a final Word into history and into the conversation can cause this conversation to have divine implications totally beyond the human realm of origin and explanation.-M. S.

Agreed. And I also agree that Christ is that final word and the interpretive principle by which we must understand the Scriptures.

Scripture is INSPIRED BY the PRESENCE OF CHRIST throughout the conversation.-M. S.

Disagreed. Scripture is inspired because it is the words of God. And since it is the words of God it must necessarily be about what he intended it to be about, and that is Christ.
I’m wondering, where does the Holy Spirit fit into Spencer’s view of inspiration? Unless I missed it, Spencer has written an entire essay about the Bible and has not once mentioned the Holy Spirit. If holy men were moved to speak and write God’s words by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t this merit some discussion? (2 Peter 1:21, Acts 4:25, 1 Cor. 2:13) Not if you deny inerrancy.

But if we start seeing content in that Old Testament removed and separated from Christ, we are looking at texts apart from anything that will save us. They may inform or motivate, but they will not save. And this conversation is about the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.-M. S.

So some of the Old Testament is not about Christ. What about Christ’s words,
“And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luk 24:25-27)
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?“ (Joh 5:39-47)
And Paul’s words to Timothy,
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2Ti 3:14-15)
And finally, Peter’s words,
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (1Pe 1:10-12)
Everything in the Old Testament is about Christ. Not some of the texts, or most of the texts, but all of the texts. They reveal Christ to us. They tell us of our need for Christ, the promise of Christ, the mission of Christ, how Christ came to us, what Christ will be, when Christ will come, and how to live in the expectation of Christ’s rule.

Spencer concludes this section by finally answering the question he started with.

My entire Christian experience, I’ve been reading attempts to defend the inspiration of the Bible logically, and apologetically. Christians fear the question “How do you know the Bible is inspired by God?” more than almost any question. I do not fear that question anymore, because I have a simple answer.

“I don’t know what you mean by inspired. If you mean, how do I know it’s right and true in everything it says, then I don’t believe in that kind of inspiration. But if you mean how do I know that the Bible is God’s true communication to me, it’s simple. The Bible shows me Jesus. The reason I believe the Bible is inspired is that it shows me who Jesus is and what Jesus means. That’s the answer to all the questions that matter to me.”- M. S.

What an answer! The Bible is fallibly inspired by God. God speaks to me to reveal Christ to me, but he doesn’t use truth to do it. This is absurdity. God cannot lie, an yet his word isn’t trustworthy! (Titus 1:2)
One quick word about the truthfulness of Scripture. There are lies in Scripture. But where those lies are recorded we are sure that they are recorded with accuracy. When Job’s friends speak, we are sure that their words are accurately recorded, but God comes at the end of the book and tells Job that they are wrong. The Scriptures will always differentiate between truth and falsehood. Does this mean that parts of Job are not inspired then? That they are not the words of God? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit inspired the writer to include those words just as he inspired the rest of the words in the Bible. They are true records of actual events that God uses to reveal himself to us.
I know this is hard to understand, but unlike Spencer, I don’t want to jettison truth just because it is hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Next, Part The Third, How Do I Interpret The Bible?

Theology for Doxology

Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The Internet Monk-Part One

Jason at Fide-O posted this on an essay by Michael Spencer.

And now, my take…

Based on what I read in that essay, and what you will read if you click over, Spencer seems to affirm inspiration while rejecting inerrancy.
Let’s take a closer look at he essay, beginning with Spencer’s stated purpose.

First, what is the Bible? How can I think about the Bible in a way that makes some sense to me, and can be described to other people meaningfully?
Second, what do we mean when we say the Bible is inspired?
Third, I want to suggest how we might interpret the Bible in a way that clearly communicates its message.-Michael Spencer

Let me say first of all, that I have no problem with what I-Monk sets out to do here. Christians across the world need to know how to read their Bibles. However, many simply give up trying to read with any kind of understanding. They either give up reading altogether, or just keep reading because this is what they were told to do in order to grow spiritually. So I think this kind of essay could be very helpful, provided we get the right answers.

Part the First, What is the Bible?

The great conversation model has allowed me to jettison any defense of the Bible as single book whose human origins and methodologies present significant difficulties that must be explained. For instance, I view the Bible as a selection of purely human literary creations. I may lay aside my faith, as many critics do, and study the Biblical material purely in their historical and cultural settings. This eliminates the need to force the Bible to be divine in origin, and gives me the freedom to hear each Biblical writer saying what he/she had to say in the way he/she chose to say it.

Or I may read the Bible with my eyes, mind and heart alive to the faith that is at the center of the Biblical conversation. The humanity of the conversation is not an obstacle, but an invitation to understand the Bible even as we understand ourselves and our histories, experiences and cultures.-M. S.

I’ll be honest, I read that first sentence over and over again, because I was afraid that it said what I thought it said the first time I read it. It does. Apparently, Spencer believes that if we have to explain that the Bible is authored in such a way that God speaks every single word, and yet uses humans to write down those words without turning them into robots, then we have a faulty view of what the Bible actually is!
But it only gets worse, folks. Spencer goes on to say, “I view the Bible as a selection of purely human literary creations.” For Spencer, this does away with problem of Scripture being ‘God-breathed’ presents for the serious student. Compare this with what Peter tells us, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”(2Pe 1:21)
If you take away the divine element of the authorship of the Bible, the book you are left with has no meaning. So, Abraham circumcised his household, thought he heard God’s voice, Ezekiel laid on his side…so what? Then there are these four biographical books about the life of Jesus whose life ended in tragedy, because if we eliminate the divine origin of Scripture, we have effectively eliminated all the accounts of all the miracles, ergo, the resurrection is eliminated.
Now follow me here, if the Gospel is the point of Scripture, then how can we have any freedom to ‘hear’ what the writers are saying, if we have eliminated the the miraculous (prophecy, miracles, and the resurrection)? We cannot hear with understanding each individual writer without the divine perspective.

Genesis isn’t twentieth century science. Leviticus is primitive, brutal and middle eastern. The Old Testament histories are not scholarly documentaries, but religious and tribal understandings of God and events. Proverbs comes from a mongrel wisdom tradition throughout the middle east. Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and not much else. The prophets spoke to their own times, and not to our own. The scholars who help me understand these books as they are, are not enemies of truth, but friends. Call it criticism, paint it as hostile, but I want to know what the texts in front of me are saying!-M. S.

I agree…to a point. The books of the Bible are different. They have different styles. They differ according to genre. Genesis was not written to be a science textbook. But if there are scientific statements found within Genesis which disagree with Professor Van Snooten’s Science book, which takes primacy? To the modern reader Leviticus may appear to be brutal and Middle Eastern (as is the whole Bible!), but are those God’s laws concerning the sacrifices? The historical books are religious understandings of events, but are those understandings from God’s or man’s perspective? And is not God the Author of all wisdom? Didn’t he give Solomon wisdom? Should the Song of Solomon be included in the Canon then, since it doesn’t speak of Christ, or is Christ a liar?
As for the schaolars, I’m not sure if he means liberals, or scholars who believe the Bible to be divine in origin, if the former, I strongly disagree, if the latter, I strongly agree.

The Old Testament and New Testament Canon are the selection of those parts of our spiritual literary heritage that make up the Great Conversation about the Judeo-Christian God. The Bible itself is a human book, created and complied by human choices. There may be other writings that contribute to the conversation, but those who know and experience the God of Jesus Christ hear the conversation most plainly in these writings. Canon is that human choice of what to listen to. Inspiration- the next section- is the validation and expounding of that choice.-M. S.

This is scary. Real scary. Compare Spencer’s statement to this Neo-orthodox statement;

How then, are we to regard those other books which claim to be God’s word also? There are two things to be said: first, are you a Mohammedan or a Hindu? If not, then these books do not apply to you. Second, if you still want to know how we are to regard those other books, I can tell you only one thing: a different voice is to be heard in them than that which we hear in the Bible. It is not the same God, not the Good Shepherd who comes to His sheep. It is the voice of a stranger. It may be that somehow it is God’s voice, too.-Emil Brunner, Our Faith, (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1954) 11.

This is a direct assault on special revelation. Is there really another book in which we can hear the voice of God? Wouldn’t this mean that it is also inspired? Or is God’s voice in these books merely the product of knowledge gained through natural revelation? Still, doesn’t that make them equal in authority to the Bible, since they too are ‘purely human literary creations?’
At least Brunner takes the time to discourage the use of other texts for ‘hearing the conversation’. Not so with Spencer.
Spencer’s understanding of the ‘canon’ of Scripture is lacking as well.
Up until the Third Council of Carthage, while the 27 books of the New Testament were widely accepted, there had been no formal consensus regarding the complete canon. The importance of the canon itself is that these are the inspired words of God given to men. The Third Council of Carthage recognized that. They did not create the canon, but were created by it. And so they solidified the confidence that we as Christians should put upon these books, because they preserve for us God’s revelation of Himself, His words, the message of salvation, and instruction for the church.
And that’s not what ‘inspiration’ is. But that’s for the next section.

The conversational model allows for a number of helpful ways of approaching scripture. For instance, it allows a variety of viewpoints on a single subject, such as the problem of evil. Job argues with Proverbs. It encourages us to hear all sides of the conversation as contributing something, and doesn’t say only one voice can be heard as right. Leviticus has something important to say that Psalms may not say. This approach sees the development of understanding as a natural part of the conversation, and isn’t disturbed when a subject appears to evolve and change over time. This model allows some parts of the conversation to be wrong, so that others can be right, and the Bible isn’t diminished as a result.-M. S.

Call it my fundamentalist upbringing, or call it my status as ‘Truly Reformed’, but I cannot for the life of me understand how God contradicting Himself in Scripture does not diminish the Bible! See, Jason had it right. Scripture is not a ‘conversation’. Scripture is God speaking, and woe to humanity if we do not listen! We have nothing to contribute to God’s Word, either collectively (as the Church) or individually (as the writers of Scripture).
Let me be clear, God did most certainly use Moses, David, Ezra, the Apostles, etc. to write Scripture. And yes, there is a human element to Scripture, such as style, personality, historical setting, etc. But these cannot detract from the fact that the Bible is God’s revelation, God’s words, God’s own breath. (2 Tim. 3:16) As J. I. Packer stated very well in his great book,

Revelation is a divine activity: not, therefore, a human achievement. Revelation is not the same thing as discovery, or the dawning of insight, or the emerging of a bright idea. Revelation does not mean man finding God, but God finding man, God sharing His secrets with us, God showing us Himself. In revelation, God is the agent as well as the object. It is not just that men speak about God, or for God; God speaks for Himself, and talks to us in person. The New Testament message is that in Christ God has spoken a word for the world, a word to which all people in all ages are summoned to listen and respond.-J. I. Packer, God Has Spoken: Revelation And The Bible (Baker: Grand Rapids, 1979) 47.

And now Spencer’s concluding remark for this section;

Most importantly, this model says the Bible presents a conversation that continues until God himself speaks a final Word. In other words, I do not expect this conversation to go on endlessly. It has a point. A conclusion. And in that belief, the great Biblical conversation differs from the Great Books conversation. There is not an endless spiral of philosophical and experiential speculation. There is, as Hebrews 1 says, a final Word: Jesus.-M. S.

Amen! Christ is the final Word. He is the sum and goal of all Scripture. What human words could not reveal of the glory of God, Jesus has revealed as the Incarnate Logos. (John 1:1-18)

But sadly, in my best Columbo impersonation I must say as I wave my cigar with one hand and fumble around in my pockets with the other, “Oh…just one more thing, Bro. Spencer!” Do you believe all of Scripture up to the arrival of Jesus to be a, “spiral of philosophical and experiential speculation?” Please say, “No.”

Next, Part The Second, How Can I Say The Bible Is Inspired? Indeed, if the Bible is ‘purely human literary creations’, how can you?

Theology for Doxology