Pastoral Musings

“In apologetic argument, as in everything else we do, we must presuppose the truth of God’s Word. We either accept God’s authority or we do not, and not to do so is sin”¹

It is supposed by some that we cannot and should not approach any issue with presuppositions. First of all, that in itself is a presuppositional approach; one that supposes one can be absolutely neutral and objective, which is impossible. We may be able to come near to objectivity and neutrality, but we must honestly accept that we all have presuppositions and biases. Those who argue against presuppositions actually live their lives by presuppositions. Simply by scheduling their activities they live by the presupposition that the world is ordered by a uniform movement of the earth in relation to the sun. They live by the presupposition that a week is seven days long and that each month is regulated by the lunar cycles. One simply cannot live without presuppositions. Thus it is that I shall attempt to lay out some presuppositions relating to the inerrancy of the Scriptures.²

Presupposition One: God As The Source Of All Knowledge And Truth

We all assume that we have knowledge. Even the person who seeks to tell us that we cannot know anything thinks that he knows what he is saying, and he expects us to understand him.

Where does knowledge come from? Is knowledge based upon certain nervous impulses and hormonal changes? Is knowledge simply the result of observation? If this is the case, knowledge for one person will certainly not be necessarily the knowledge that another thinks that he has. In fact, knowledge would be relative and thus be only opinion. On the other hand, if knowledge is something that can be held in common by humans, knowledge must have an absolute and objective source that determines the truth or falsity of a matter.

For there to be an absolute source and standard of knowledge and truth that source must possess all knowledge and truth. The Christian Theist understands this source of all knowledge and truth to be the God of the Bible.³

If God is the source and standard of all truth and all knowledge, then we have a standard by which we can measure all truth claims. If we do not have God as this source and standard of knowledge and truth, we descend into relativism and irrationality.

Presupposition Two: God Reveals Himself To His Creatures

When we presuppose God as the source of knowledge and truth we are led to consider that God also is the source of all the media in which knowledge and truth reside: i.e. He is the creator of all things. If God is the creator of all things, then He is also the source of the persons that are human.⁴ If that is so, God must be the ultimate person; otherwise how could God relate to us on a personal level if He were not a person?

If we presuppose the personhood of God, then we are left wondering about God relating His purposes to man. How will man know what God wants from him? We don’t see God with our eyes. We don’t physically feel God. How, then, can we know God and His will for us? This leads us to the presupposition that God reveals Himself to His creatures.

Presupposition Three: The Lordship of God

If God is the source of knowledge, truth, personhood, and all of creation, we then find ourselves confronted with the idea that God is Lord and ruler of all. Thus the presupposition of the lordship of God.

The lordship of God means that He must be obeyed. We must yield to Him and His demands, commands, wishes, and purpose for us.⁵

Presupposition Four: The Inerrancy Of The Bible⁶

Why presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible? Why not attribute this to the Koran, or the Hindu holy books, or the holy books of other religions?

The inerrancy of the Bible should be presupposed for two reasons:

1. The one who accepts the authority of the Bible and does not approach it skeptically can easily tell that it is a book that is coherent and reliable in what it says.

2. Since the Bible is coherent and reliable we can with good reason take it at its word that it is inspired⁷, and thus is the Word of God and that it is God’s revelation of Himself and that His plan for us is contained in it⁸. In fact, it is this very inspiration that provides for us the unity and reliability of the Bible.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, we should remember that God is true. It then follows that God’s Word is true⁹.

Those who believe that God is the source of all truth, and that He is the Lord who reveals Himself, have no problem establishing the inerrancy of Scripture. It is only in Scripture that we find a God-centered worldview that teaches us that the supreme being is a person who reveals truth. It is no surprise, then, that we find Scripture claiming to be true. Neither is it surprising that we find Scripture claiming to be pure and without error. To deny inerrancy is to throw doubt upon the Scriptures and leave us asking where the Word of God is to be found, and which parts of the Scripture can we determine to be the Word of God.

Practical Considerations

The practical side of this is the one to which we should turn. While we do well to accept the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, we can certainly profess that we believe them without obeying their teachings. There is certainly a need for us to move from theory to practice.

We are bound to yield to God’s Word. God has spoken and man must listen. If we are to learn, we must certainly do so with God’s Word setting the standard for us. This does not mean that we approach the Bible as a science or mathematics textbook. It does mean that we allow the Word of God to guide us as we study mathematics, science, history, etc. Scripture tells us that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: A good understanding have all they that do his commandments: His praise endureth for ever.” (Psalm 111:10) And again, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) Our learning should be shaped by the Word of God.

Inerrancy means, too, that our Bible can be trusted. We do not have to wonder whether or not God has spoken. He has. We need not live in doubt about which parts of Scripture are true and which are not. Scripture is truth. We should trust God because He has spoken to us plainly and truthfully.

Addendum: Special thanks go to Dr. John Frame for reading this article and offering constructive criticism.

Related articles

• Inerrancy, Rationalistic Thought And Empiricism (pastoralmusings.com)
• Defining Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)
• A Few Questions About Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)
• My Response to Joel pt 3 (pastoralmusings.com)
• Warfield on The Incarnation and Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)

IVP has sent me Doing Philosophy As A Christian.

Cross-Focused Media in conjunction with Christian Focus publications sent me Sproul’s Unseen Realities.

I am also working my way through Allison’s Historical Theology which was sent courtesy of Zondervan.

Image via Wikipedia

Ok, I’ll be honest.

I’m a Fundamentalist Christian.  I am also a very conservative person when  it comes to politics.

I must say that I cannot understand why Christians want to post the Ten Commandments all over the place. (They even have them posted outside of one of the buildings where I am pastor of a church.)

Do Christians not understand what legalism is?  Do they not understand that morality will not change by posting the Ten Commandments?  Do they not understand grace?

Do Christians not understand Galatians 3:10-14 , or Romans 5:20-21 ?

If Christians wish to make monuments, make them monuments of the cross of Jesus.  Better yet, preach the Gospel.  Let converted souls be our monuments.

Do they not understand that the law condemns?  Romans 3:19-28  It is Jesus who liberates!

Just musing…

On the doctrines of grace and the five solas:

On theology:

Most people don’t know that Saddleback has a 72-week systematic theology course thatis required for every small group member and every staff member. And I’ve had over15,000 people go through this 72-week systematic study. I would take doctrinalknowledge of any 500 Saddleback members and compare it to any 500 members of anyother church and we’d beat them.

On pride and temptation:

I’m begging the people who watch this, please pray for me. I would rather stick a knife in my heart than dishonor the name of God.

Full transcript on Scribd

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/55821766

Related articles

• John Piper Still Being Taken to Task Over His Use of Rick Warren At DG Conference (pastoralmusings.com)
• Transcript of John Piper’s Interview of Rick Warren (5ptsalt.com)
• John Piper Interviews Rick Warren on Doctrine (allthyngs.wordpress.com)
• John Piper Interviews Rick Warren At Saddleback (5ptsalt.com)
• John Piper Interviews Rick Warren at Saddleback (slaughteringthesheep.wordpress.com)
• A La Carte (5/27) (challies.com)

Cover via Amazon

Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching has been a hit for a few years.  I finally picked up a copy while on vacation last week.  I devoured it in two days.

While not giving a full-fledged review of the book, I felt that I could at least give a few thoughts about it.

1.  The book was not very engaging to me.  I was not riveted to it because I felt it was an enjoyable read.  I was riveted due to the content.

2.  The book is faithful to Scripture.

3.  The emphasis upon what Chapell calls “Fallen Condition Focus” is a good emphasis.  It leads us to ask how a passage relates to us and how it leads us to Christ.

4.  The FCF and Christ-centered focus affect our exegesis and our hermeneutic.  They cause us to look at texts as pointing us to Jesus, the one of whom Scripture speaks.

All in all, this is a good text.  It not only directs us in our homiletic, but it helps us with our theology.

According to one survey, only 23% of pastors report being happy and content in their identity in Christ, in their church, and in their home.

I suspect, however, that men in these situations might be crippled all the more were they to faithfully preach a text like 1 Tim. 5:17-20. They would be seen as self-serving and courting with more hostility and dissatisfaction from a people already running afoul of God’s call to churches to honor faithful servants.

So, I’m hopeful at least some of God’s people would consider these statistics, reflect upon their church’s treatment of their pastors, and perhaps lead a conspiracy to make sure faithful elders receive “double honor” from those they teach and lead.

via Don’t Make Your Pastor a Statistic – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile.

There are men in the ministry who are after money.  There is no doubt about that.  Sadly, they have tainted the image of the ministry to such a degree that many never think seriously about the burdens that a pastor carries.  They do not think about the fact that he needs health insurance, and other things that are often provided by other employers.  Some never receive a paid vacation.  Some pay for their own housing.

The burdens of the ministry are great.  The rewards are eternal.  Do not forget, however, that there should be remuneration of various kinds in the present.

Related articles

• I Am So Very Glad to Be A Pastor (pastoralmusings.com)
• Pastor Or Statistic? (mgpcpastor.wordpress.com)
• The Loneliness of Pastoral Ministry (pastorayres.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Joel said,

What collected, affirmed, confirmed, and tells you how to interpret Scripture?

What, indeed?

Joel will probably say that the “what” is tradition, but is it?

Is it merely tradition to recognize, accept, treasure, and preserve Scripture?

Perhaps it is moreso a reverence for God that leads to a reverence for Scripture.

Just musing….

Let me hear from ya’.

Related articles

• Tradition and Scripture (pastoralmusings.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Often much is made of the so-called parallels between the Genesis account of creation and various Ancient Near Eastern texts. This is an attempt to consider a few things concerning the Enuma Elish and the Genesis account of creation.

When on high the heaven had not been named,

Firm ground below had not been called by name,

Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,

(And) Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,

Their waters commingling as a single body;¹

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ” (Genesis 1:1)

The Enuma Elish opens with the heavens and the earth, while Genesis opens with God. The gods of Enuma Elish are not so much creators and distinct from the universe as they are begetters. Apsu begat the heavens and the firm ground, we are told. Mummu-Tiamat “bore them all.” On the other hand, the Genesis account tells us that first there was God, and He created the heavens and the earth. Instead of the world that we see being a part of God, it is made by Him. It is not derived from His substance, but was created ex nihilo.

Enuma Elish also speaks of multiple gods which had a beginning. Genesis presents to us one God who existed before space, time, and matter.

 

In the chamber of fates, the abode of destinies,

A god was engendered, most able and wisest of gods. (80)

In the heart of Apsu was Marduk³⁰ created,

In the heart of holy Apsu was Marduk created.

He who begot him was Ea, his father;

She who bore him was Damkina, his mother.²

 

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ” (Genesis 1:1)

Marduk, the god of the Babylonians, was considered to be both created and begotten. The God of Genesis, however, is seen as creating, yet not created. He is before time, space, and matter.

O Marduk, thou art indeed our avenger.

We have granted thee kingship over the universe entire.

When in Assembly thou sittest, thy word shall be supreme.³

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ” (Genesis 1:1)

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ” (Genesis 1:28)

Marduk is established by the gods as the ruler of the universe, while the Creator God of Genesis is supreme by merit of being the Creator of all things and before all things.

 

When Marduk hears the words of the gods,

His heart prompts (him) to fashion artful works.

Opening his mouth, he addresses Ea

To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart:

“Blood I will mass and cause bones to be.

I will establish a savage, ‘man’ shall be his name.

Verily, savage-man I will create.

He shall be charged with the service of the gods That they might be at ease!

The ways of the gods I will artfully alter.

Though alike revered, into two (groups) they shall be divided.” (10)

Ea answered him, speaking a word to him,

Giving him another plan for the relief of the gods:

“Let but one of their brothers be handed over;

He alone shall perish that mankind may be fashioned.⁴

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ” (Genesis 1:26–28)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ” (Genesis 2:7)

Here the contrasts are again great. Marduk and the gods determine to create man. Man is savage and will be used to serve the gods that they will not have to work so much. Not only so, but man will be made by one of the gods dying. The God of Genesis creates man out of the dust of the ground, and honors him by making him reflective of the greatness of his Creator.

 

“Most exalted be the Son, our avenger;

Let his sovereignty be surpassing, having no rival.

May he shepherd the black-headed ones, his creatures.

To the end of days, without forgetting, let them acclaim his ways.

May he establish for his fathers the great food-offerings; (110)

Their support they shall furnish, shall tend their sanctuaries.

May he cause incense to be smelled, … their spells,

Make a likeness on earth of what he has wrought in heaven.

May he order the black-headed to revere him,

May the subjects ever bear in mind to speak of their god,

And may they at his word pay heed to the goddess.

May food-offerings be borne for their gods and goddesses.

Without fail let them support their gods!⁵

The gods of Enuma Elish must be supported by their creatures. They must eat. They must have relief. The God of Genesis is seen as being before time, space, and matter. Thus it is that He is recognized as needing nothing from man. Sacrifices to Him will only be acts of worship, not because He has need.

These are just a few observations that can be made concerning the differences between the Genesis account of the creation and the Enuma Elish. While there are indeed parallels between the accounts, the differences are of such degree that there should not be as much comparison between Genesis and Enuma Elish as there should be contrasts.

Related articles

• The Unity of The Bible: Psalms 1-50 (pastoralmusings.com)
• Latest Studies (pastoralmusings.com)

What does the incarnational aspect of Scripture, the anti-inerrancy camp, and Arianism have in common?

Check out this series of posts by Rey on RE:Fundamentals to find out.

Image via Wikipedia

The status of the canon has undergone a drastic shift in modernity. The precise boundaries of the canon, and the relation of canonical writings to nonbiblical tradition, remained matters of confessional dispute after the Reformation. Yet, precritical Christian theology was largely agreed that Christian faith and practice are governed by a set of inspired texts whose antiquity, orthodoxy, and wide usage entitle them to be recognized as prophetic and apostolic Scripture. With the rise of the critical history of Christianity in the eighteenth century, a different account of the status of the canon and the lengthy processes of canonization came to prominence.
On this critical account, canonization is not so much an aspect of the providential ordering of the history of the church, but a set of contingent human undertakings. The effect of this is the “naturalization” of the canon, so that it comes to be regarded as an arbitrary or accidental feature of the Christian religion, to be explained, not transcendentally, but simply in terms of the immanent processes of religious history. This means that the texts of the canon cease to be viewed as categorically different from other noncanonical texts. It means, further, that canonicity is to be defined as the result of an act of choice and authorization on the church’s part, apart from any supposed divine warrants for such an act.

Moreover, the processes of canonization are not viewed as the church’s gradual perception of the inherent status of the biblical texts, but as a product of, and medium for, social and political relations, to be analyzed in terms of the functioning of ideology as a means of social control. Canon, like “orthodoxy,” is a product, not recognition. Both in giving an account of the history of early Christianity, and in giving a theological account of the Bible, therefore, canon has been subsumed into the history of religion, and so it has become a concept both more arbitrary and less innocent.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier and N. T. Wright, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 98-99 (London; Grand Rapids, MI.: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005).

While I’m not convinced that we should through out all critical scholarship, it is certainly instructive to see that there is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) anti-supernatural element in it.  Precritical scholarship accepted that canon as the result of providence.  Critical scholarship has led many to view the canon as the result of human decisions.  One views God as involved in it, the other views Him as not so involved.

What is the issue  in it all?  Presuppositions.  One has a presupposition regarding the providential involvement of God in the church.  The other has a presupposition that there is a more human element to the Scriptures and the canon.  This is the same issue that we see in the inerrancy debate.

The question is not, “how shall we prove our point”  The question is, “What shall we believe about God?  Is He involved in this world?  Is He even there?  Are we to hold to a Deistic view of God and Scripture, or are we to hold to a providential view?”

Are there other options?

What are your thoughts?