|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 2, 2023 23:33:38 GMT -5
The Biblical Writers on Inspiration
KEVIN BAUDER
Bible Covenants
Christians affirm that the Bible was written by both human authors and a divine Author simultaneously. One of the most interesting consequences of this simultaneous authorship is that the human authors were conscious of the fact that they were writing Scripture. This consciousness shows up in several ways. It is evident among the Old Testament prophets when they claimed that they wrote when the “word of the Lord” came to them and spoke (Jer 1:4, 11, 13; 13:3, 8; 24:4; 32:6; Ezek 3:16; 6:1; 11:14; 12:21; 13:1; 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 11; 18:1; 20:45; 21:1, 8, 18; 22:1, 17, 23; 24:1, 15, 20; 26:1; 28:11; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:1, 23: 34:1; 35:1; 36:16; 38:1; Zech 4:8; 6:9). It is also evident in the Old Testament authors’ awareness that the Holy Spirit was controlling them as they wrote (Ezek 3:24–27; 2 Sam 23:1–3). The Old Testament writers knew that God was using them.
The apostle Peter is reflecting the dual authorship of Scripture when he insists that the Holy Spirit spoke about Judas “through the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16, citing Psalm 69:25; 109:8). Furthermore, Peter denies that the Old Testament prophecies were written by any human initiative, instead affirming that the prophets spoke as they were “borne along” by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews attributes Old Testament Scriptures to the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:7, cf Psalm 95:7; Heb 10:15, cf Jer 31:33–34).
The apostle Paul does not assign the authorship of Scripture to the Holy Spirit in particular, but he does speak about the Old Testament as if it comes from God. In the introduction to Romans he states that God promised the gospel ahead of time by His prophets in the holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2). Paul also tells the Galatians that the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith and so preached the gospel to Abraham (Gal 3:8). This statement treats what Scripture sees as identical with what God sees. Furthermore, Paul introduces Old Testament texts with an interesting parallel construction, stating that God spoke to Moses and that Scripture spoke to Pharaoh (Rom 9:15, 17). For Paul, Scripture saying something is identical to God saying it.
Paul’s high view of the Old Testament led him to consider it as profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16–17). He believed that it was written for “our sakes,” i.e., for Church saints (1 Cor 9:10). He understood it to provide examples (patterns or analogies—the word is types) for us (1 Cor 10:11). Even though the Old Testament was not written to Church saints, they benefit from it by looking for analogies to their own situation.
Remarkably, the apostle Paul does not limit his endorsement to the Old Testament Scriptures. In 1 Timothy 5:17–18 he makes the argument that preachers ought to be paid. He bases his argument partly on two citations of Scripture. He first quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, which forbids muzzling an ox while it is threshing. Obviously, that is an Old Testament reference. But Paul immediately follows it with the saying that the laborer is worthy of his hire. While the principle behind this saying can be found in the Old Testament, the saying itself is from the teachings of Jesus as found in Luke 10:7. Paul cites both texts side by side, and he makes it clear that they are both Scripture. Paul used Luke’s Gospel with the same level of authority as the books of Moses.
This kind of attribution is not unique. Peter does something similar when he is constructing an argument about God’s longsuffering. For evidence he cites Paul’s authority (2 Pet 3:15–16). Peter notes that Paul’s writings are sometimes hard to understand. He further observes that false teachers (who are unlearned and unstable) attempt to twist Paul’s writings. Then he adds these words: “as they do also the other Scriptures.” In other words, Peter classifies at least some of Paul’s epistles as Scripture, right alongside the Old Testament Scriptures.
If Paul is any indication, the New Testament writers saw their own writings as genuinely authoritative. For example, 2 Corinthians sustains an ongoing, threatening undertone about a projected visit from Paul. He makes it clear that he intends to hold the congregation accountable for obeying his words in the epistle (see especially 2 Cor 10:8–11). In an earlier letter, he had already warned them not to go beyond the things that were written (1 Cor 4:6, though the KJV obscures the translation of this verse).
Given this abundant evidence, the inescapable conclusion is that the writers of Scripture knew what they were doing. They were conscious that their words were more than simply human instruction. They understood that the Holy Spirit was using them to author Scripture and that what they wrote was genuinely authoritative. They held a high view both of each other’s writings and of their own writings. Their understanding of their own written documents is fully consistent with a doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration and robust view of New Testament authority.
This essay was originally published here and is used by permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 5, 2023 13:06:40 GMT -5
Disclaimers to Inspiration?
Share
g3min.org/disclaimers-to-inspiration/
KEVIN BAUDER
Bible Covenants
The Bible affirms its own inspiration. Both testaments have the authority of Christ behind them. The New Testament authors treat their own writings as authoritative. They even cite one another’s writings as Scripture. Their affirmations about the text imply verbal inspiration, which in turn entails the inerrancy of Scripture as originally inspired.
Nevertheless, critics cite a handful of passages from the New Testament as evidence that at least some passages must not be inspired. Read in a certain way, these passages appear to disclaim inspiration. In them, the biblical writer seems to be insisting that his words are merely his and not divinely chosen.
Read correctly, however, these passages do not disavow inspiration. Instead, they serve to bolster the claims that the writers speak with divine authority. Three of the most commonly cited passages occur in the writings of Paul.
The first of these is in Romans 3:5 where, in the middle of his argument, Paul interjects the parenthetical statement, “I speak as a man.” Taken in isolation, the statement seems puzzling. Is Paul suggesting that during this particular discussion he is merely offering his own human perspective rather than speaking as the oracles of God?
As so often occurs, the answer becomes clear by paying attention to the context. The epistle to the Romans is a tightly reasoned theological treatise. In advancing the argument of this epistle, Paul anticipates that he will have to deal with objections that will occur to his readers. His strategy is to raise the objections himself, usually as if they were posed by some imaginary interlocutor.
For example, near the end of Romans 3 Paul says that God justifies Jews as well as Gentiles through faith (3:30). That observation raises a possible objection, and Paul frames the objection as a question in the next verse: “Do we then make void the law through faith?” Paul then answers his own question by exclaiming, “God forbid” (3:31). He then gives the reasons that this objection is mistaken. Paul has raised the objection simply so that he can refute it.
Similarly, in Romans 6:1 he asks, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” In 6:15 he follows up by asking, “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?” Paul’s answer to both questions is, “God forbid.” Clearly, he is not endorsing the objection. Instead, he raises it so that he can dispatch it.
Another instance occurs in the opening verses of Romans 7, where Paul argues that God’s law works through human depravity so as to provoke sin and bring death. This teaching might leave the impression that the law itself is a bad thing. Paul anticipates this objection and raises it himself: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin?” (7:7). Again his answer is, “God forbid.”
In each case, Paul not only states these objections and denounces them as wrong but also goes on to show why they are wrong. He shows where the reasoning of these questions breaks down. By the time readers reach Romans 7, they should have become accustomed to this pattern, and Paul continues to employ it through the rest of his argument (see 9:14, 19; 11:1).
Paul first deploys this strategy early in Romans 3. There he asks a cluster of rhetorical questions that constitute objections to his argument. The first is, “For what if some [Jews] did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?” (Rom 3:2). He answers this question with the phrase that becomes his standard reply: “God forbid.”
His answer to that objection, however, raises a more serious objection. “But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” (3:5). As in other instances, Paul does not think this is a good question, and he does not think that it advances a sound argument. In this case, however, Paul wishes to distance himself from the objection even more than usual. He wants people to understand that he is not endorsing it. So he inserts the parenthetical qualification, “I speak as a man.”
What Paul is saying is that this is the kind of argument that sinful humans are likely to cook up. He is imagining some guy who doesn’t want to believe the truth and who tosses this argument into the debate to confuse the issue. When Paul says, “I speak as a man,” he is saying, “This is exactly the kind of argument that that guy would make.” Paul then rejects the argument with his standard denunciation: “God forbid,” going on to expose its flaws.
In other words, Paul does not intend to make any statement at all about his authority or the inspiration of what he writes. Instead, he intends to put a bad argument, framed as a question, in context. Paul is saying that this isn’t his argument, but the kind of argument that an unbeliever would make. As in the other instances, Paul raises the question only to be able to answer it and to refute the bad thinking that it embodies.
In no sense does Paul disclaim divine authority for his teaching or divine inspiration for his writing. The text stands as a model of persuasion, with Paul dismantling every objection that sinful humans throw against his argument. As an objection to verbal inspiration, Romans 3:5 simply fails.
This essay first appeared here and is used by permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 25, 2023 14:03:54 GMT -5
The Biblical Writers on Inspiration
Share
g3min.org/the-biblical-writers-on-inspiration/
KEVIN BAUDER
Bible Covenants
Christians affirm that the Bible was written by both human authors and a divine Author simultaneously. One of the most interesting consequences of this simultaneous authorship is that the human authors were conscious of the fact that they were writing Scripture. This consciousness shows up in several ways. It is evident among the Old Testament prophets when they claimed that they wrote when the “word of the Lord” came to them and spoke (Jer 1:4, 11, 13; 13:3, 8; 24:4; 32:6; Ezek 3:16; 6:1; 11:14; 12:21; 13:1; 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 11; 18:1; 20:45; 21:1, 8, 18; 22:1, 17, 23; 24:1, 15, 20; 26:1; 28:11; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:1, 23: 34:1; 35:1; 36:16; 38:1; Zech 4:8; 6:9). It is also evident in the Old Testament authors’ awareness that the Holy Spirit was controlling them as they wrote (Ezek 3:24–27; 2 Sam 23:1–3). The Old Testament writers knew that God was using them.
The apostle Peter is reflecting the dual authorship of Scripture when he insists that the Holy Spirit spoke about Judas “through the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16, citing Psalm 69:25; 109:8). Furthermore, Peter denies that the Old Testament prophecies were written by any human initiative, instead affirming that the prophets spoke as they were “borne along” by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews attributes Old Testament Scriptures to the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:7, cf Psalm 95:7; Heb 10:15, cf Jer 31:33–34).
The apostle Paul does not assign the authorship of Scripture to the Holy Spirit in particular, but he does speak about the Old Testament as if it comes from God. In the introduction to Romans he states that God promised the gospel ahead of time by His prophets in the holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2). Paul also tells the Galatians that the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith and so preached the gospel to Abraham (Gal 3:8). This statement treats what Scripture sees as identical with what God sees. Furthermore, Paul introduces Old Testament texts with an interesting parallel construction, stating that God spoke to Moses and that Scripture spoke to Pharaoh (Rom 9:15, 17). For Paul, Scripture saying something is identical to God saying it.
Paul’s high view of the Old Testament led him to consider it as profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16–17). He believed that it was written for “our sakes,” i.e., for Church saints (1 Cor 9:10). He understood it to provide examples (patterns or analogies—the word is types) for us (1 Cor 10:11). Even though the Old Testament was not written to Church saints, they benefit from it by looking for analogies to their own situation.
Remarkably, the apostle Paul does not limit his endorsement to the Old Testament Scriptures. In 1 Timothy 5:17–18 he makes the argument that preachers ought to be paid. He bases his argument partly on two citations of Scripture. He first quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, which forbids muzzling an ox while it is threshing. Obviously, that is an Old Testament reference. But Paul immediately follows it with the saying that the laborer is worthy of his hire. While the principle behind this saying can be found in the Old Testament, the saying itself is from the teachings of Jesus as found in Luke 10:7. Paul cites both texts side by side, and he makes it clear that they are both Scripture. Paul used Luke’s Gospel with the same level of authority as the books of Moses.
This kind of attribution is not unique. Peter does something similar when he is constructing an argument about God’s longsuffering. For evidence he cites Paul’s authority (2 Pet 3:15–16). Peter notes that Paul’s writings are sometimes hard to understand. He further observes that false teachers (who are unlearned and unstable) attempt to twist Paul’s writings. Then he adds these words: “as they do also the other Scriptures.” In other words, Peter classifies at least some of Paul’s epistles as Scripture, right alongside the Old Testament Scriptures.
If Paul is any indication, the New Testament writers saw their own writings as genuinely authoritative. For example, 2 Corinthians sustains an ongoing, threatening undertone about a projected visit from Paul. He makes it clear that he intends to hold the congregation accountable for obeying his words in the epistle (see especially 2 Cor 10:8–11). In an earlier letter, he had already warned them not to go beyond the things that were written (1 Cor 4:6, though the KJV obscures the translation of this verse).
Given this abundant evidence, the inescapable conclusion is that the writers of Scripture knew what they were doing. They were conscious that their words were more than simply human instruction. They understood that the Holy Spirit was using them to author Scripture and that what they wrote was genuinely authoritative. They held a high view both of each other’s writings and of their own writings. Their understanding of their own written documents is fully consistent with a doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration and robust view of New Testament authority.
This essay was originally published here and is used by permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2023 15:30:17 GMT -5
The Biblical Writers on Inspiration
Share
g3min.org/the-biblical-writers-on-inspiration/
KEVIN BAUDER
Bible Covenants
Christians affirm that the Bible was written by both human authors and a divine Author simultaneously. One of the most interesting consequences of this simultaneous authorship is that the human authors were conscious of the fact that they were writing Scripture. This consciousness shows up in several ways. It is evident among the Old Testament prophets when they claimed that they wrote when the “word of the Lord” came to them and spoke (Jer 1:4, 11, 13; 13:3, 8; 24:4; 32:6; Ezek 3:16; 6:1; 11:14; 12:21; 13:1; 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 11; 18:1; 20:45; 21:1, 8, 18; 22:1, 17, 23; 24:1, 15, 20; 26:1; 28:11; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:1, 23: 34:1; 35:1; 36:16; 38:1; Zech 4:8; 6:9). It is also evident in the Old Testament authors’ awareness that the Holy Spirit was controlling them as they wrote (Ezek 3:24–27; 2 Sam 23:1–3). The Old Testament writers knew that God was using them.
The apostle Peter is reflecting the dual authorship of Scripture when he insists that the Holy Spirit spoke about Judas “through the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16, citing Psalm 69:25; 109:8). Furthermore, Peter denies that the Old Testament prophecies were written by any human initiative, instead affirming that the prophets spoke as they were “borne along” by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21). Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews attributes Old Testament Scriptures to the Holy Spirit (Heb 3:7, cf Psalm 95:7; Heb 10:15, cf Jer 31:33–34).
The apostle Paul does not assign the authorship of Scripture to the Holy Spirit in particular, but he does speak about the Old Testament as if it comes from God. In the introduction to Romans he states that God promised the gospel ahead of time by His prophets in the holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2). Paul also tells the Galatians that the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith and so preached the gospel to Abraham (Gal 3:8). This statement treats what Scripture sees as identical with what God sees. Furthermore, Paul introduces Old Testament texts with an interesting parallel construction, stating that God spoke to Moses and that Scripture spoke to Pharaoh (Rom 9:15, 17). For Paul, Scripture saying something is identical to God saying it.
Paul’s high view of the Old Testament led him to consider it as profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16–17). He believed that it was written for “our sakes,” i.e., for Church saints (1 Cor 9:10). He understood it to provide examples (patterns or analogies—the word is types) for us (1 Cor 10:11). Even though the Old Testament was not written to Church saints, they benefit from it by looking for analogies to their own situation.
Remarkably, the apostle Paul does not limit his endorsement to the Old Testament Scriptures. In 1 Timothy 5:17–18 he makes the argument that preachers ought to be paid. He bases his argument partly on two citations of Scripture. He first quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, which forbids muzzling an ox while it is threshing. Obviously, that is an Old Testament reference. But Paul immediately follows it with the saying that the laborer is worthy of his hire. While the principle behind this saying can be found in the Old Testament, the saying itself is from the teachings of Jesus as found in Luke 10:7. Paul cites both texts side by side, and he makes it clear that they are both Scripture. Paul used Luke’s Gospel with the same level of authority as the books of Moses.
This kind of attribution is not unique. Peter does something similar when he is constructing an argument about God’s longsuffering. For evidence he cites Paul’s authority (2 Pet 3:15–16). Peter notes that Paul’s writings are sometimes hard to understand. He further observes that false teachers (who are unlearned and unstable) attempt to twist Paul’s writings. Then he adds these words: “as they do also the other Scriptures.” In other words, Peter classifies at least some of Paul’s epistles as Scripture, right alongside the Old Testament Scriptures.
If Paul is any indication, the New Testament writers saw their own writings as genuinely authoritative. For example, 2 Corinthians sustains an ongoing, threatening undertone about a projected visit from Paul. He makes it clear that he intends to hold the congregation accountable for obeying his words in the epistle (see especially 2 Cor 10:8–11). In an earlier letter, he had already warned them not to go beyond the things that were written (1 Cor 4:6, though the KJV obscures the translation of this verse).
Given this abundant evidence, the inescapable conclusion is that the writers of Scripture knew what they were doing. They were conscious that their words were more than simply human instruction. They understood that the Holy Spirit was using them to author Scripture and that what they wrote was genuinely authoritative. They held a high view both of each other’s writings and of their own writings. Their understanding of their own written documents is fully consistent with a doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration and robust view of New Testament authority.
This essay was originally published here and is used by permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 1, 2023 17:18:25 GMT -5
Creation as Foundational
Share
g3min.org/creation-as-foundational
KEVIN BAUDER
purple flower field during daytime
When it comes to the opening chapters of Genesis, many conservative Christians spend their energy defending the text against the counter-narrative of evolution. That is right and proper: the theory of evolution entails in all its forms an utterly anti-biblical and anti-human philosophy. Nevertheless, the point of these chapters is not to contradict theories of evolution, which only became prevalent during the late Nineteenth Century. Instead, these chapters are valuable for the theological underpinning that they provide for virtually the entire system of faith and belief—including some categories that are rarely mentioned within systematic theologies.
Perhaps the most important function of the early chapters of Genesis is to introduce us to God. They show that God is Creator, and no truth of Scripture is more important than the Creator-creature distinction. Besides depicting God in terms of His power, they also show Him in His benevolence. What He makes is good, and the good is contextually understood as what is good for humans. God knows what is good, and when He knows that a good is absent (as when the man was alone), He provides it. He is also a God who blesses and, when humans sin, a God who promises a deliverer.
The early chapters of Genesis also explain both who humans are and why they were made. They are the image of God, and they were made for dominion. Within His universal kingdom, God created a world that He did not intend to govern directly. Instead, He planned for this world to be ruled mediatorially by godlike creatures. He gave them dominion, and He blessed them with authority to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth, and to subdue it. They were made to be kings and queens. They were also made to be priests, standing in the presence of God and enjoying His companionship.
These narratives also explain what went wrong with this beautiful vision. God imposed a test upon the first man and the first woman. They were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. If they ate the fruit, they would be claiming for themselves the prerogative to determine the good. Instead, God wanted them to trust Him for the good, which He abundantly provided. Rather than trusting the Creator, however, the man and woman chose to declare independence of God, choosing what seemed good to themselves. By declaring independence of God, they necessarily separated themselves from life, for their life came from God. They passed under sentence of death, a sentence that lies heavy upon humanity until this day.
In later Scriptures, the apostle Paul would appeal to these early chapters as fundamental for his doctrine of imputation (Rom 5:12ff). All humans, he claimed, sinned in Adam. That is why all humans die. Paul’s understanding of imputation also gets transferred to Christ, whose sufferings and merits are credited to His people.
The third chapter of Genesis gives the first glimpse of salvation to come. God offers hope through the seed of the woman, who will crush the head of the serpent, though not without pain. Furthermore, while God drove the man and woman out of paradise, He clothed them in skins, replacing the sustainable, plant-based garments they had fashioned for themselves. Covering the results of their sin required the shedding of blood—surely a picture of redemption to come.
According to the text, God made humanity in two sexes, both of which exhibited His image. These two sexes were made for companionship, for union, and for procreation. God chose to protect this marvelous relationship with the institution of marriage, which from the beginning necessitated exactly one man and one woman. God defined marriage in terms of a leaving and a cleaving or faithful devotion, which was subsequently to be cemented in one-flesh sexual union. Jesus and Paul both understood the creation narratives to be definitive for marriage, sex, and gender, including an order between the sexes within marriage and (later) the church.
Since human sin damaged the created world, it also introduced the problem of correctly caring for that world. For the first time, creation became recalcitrant and even dangerous. Human dominion was not entirely lost, but it was profoundly damaged. Furthermore, predatory use of the created world became possible for humans, with the result that they could destroy parts of their environment. A right understanding of both human dominion and human sin are fundamental to any genuinely useful environmentalism.
The Fall also brought scarcity into the world. Along with scarcity arose the necessity of hard labor, of exchanging goods, and of inventing various media of exchange. In other words, the discipline of economics is possible only in a post-lapsarian world, a world of scarcity. Furthermore, a right understanding of economics must take account of the necessity of labor, the reality of scarcity, and the self-seeking bent of human nature as these are communicated in the opening chapters of Genesis. A sound economics must be a biblical economics.
The opening chapters of Genesis also matter for our understanding of last things. Eschatology parallels protology. Whatever God intended to do when He created is exactly what He intends to accomplish in redemption. The end will bring us full circle to the purpose of the beginning. If indeed God intended to rule the world mediatorially through godlike creatures, then that is how things are going to turn out.
Genesis opens with the accounts of creation, the Fall, the flood, and the division of nations. These stories are in the text to make important theological points. They become the basis of doctrinal reasoning throughout the rest of Scripture. Genuine biblicists should plunder these chapters, not merely to refute false theories about origins, but to be able to answer the most important questions that people can ask.
This essay was first published here and is used by permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2023 16:09:24 GMT -5
Disclaimers to Inspiration?
Share
g3min.org/disclaimers-to-inspiration/
KEVIN BAUDER
Bible Covenants
The Bible affirms its own inspiration. Both testaments have the authority of Christ behind them. The New Testament authors treat their own writings as authoritative. They even cite one another’s writings as Scripture. Their affirmations about the text imply verbal inspiration, which in turn entails the inerrancy of Scripture as originally inspired.
Nevertheless, critics cite a handful of passages from the New Testament as evidence that at least some passages must not be inspired. Read in a certain way, these passages appear to disclaim inspiration. In them, the biblical writer seems to be insisting that his words are merely his and not divinely chosen.
Read correctly, however, these passages do not disavow inspiration. Instead, they serve to bolster the claims that the writers speak with divine authority. Three of the most commonly cited passages occur in the writings of Paul.
The first of these is in Romans 3:5 where, in the middle of his argument, Paul interjects the parenthetical statement, “I speak as a man.” Taken in isolation, the statement seems puzzling. Is Paul suggesting that during this particular discussion he is merely offering his own human perspective rather than speaking as the oracles of God?
As so often occurs, the answer becomes clear by paying attention to the context. The epistle to the Romans is a tightly reasoned theological treatise. In advancing the argument of this epistle, Paul anticipates that he will have to deal with objections that will occur to his readers. His strategy is to raise the objections himself, usually as if they were posed by some imaginary interlocutor.
For example, near the end of Romans 3 Paul says that God justifies Jews as well as Gentiles through faith (3:30). That observation raises a possible objection, and Paul frames the objection as a question in the next verse: “Do we then make void the law through faith?” Paul then answers his own question by exclaiming, “God forbid” (3:31). He then gives the reasons that this objection is mistaken. Paul has raised the objection simply so that he can refute it.
Similarly, in Romans 6:1 he asks, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” In 6:15 he follows up by asking, “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?” Paul’s answer to both questions is, “God forbid.” Clearly, he is not endorsing the objection. Instead, he raises it so that he can dispatch it.
Another instance occurs in the opening verses of Romans 7, where Paul argues that God’s law works through human depravity so as to provoke sin and bring death. This teaching might leave the impression that the law itself is a bad thing. Paul anticipates this objection and raises it himself: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin?” (7:7). Again his answer is, “God forbid.”
In each case, Paul not only states these objections and denounces them as wrong but also goes on to show why they are wrong. He shows where the reasoning of these questions breaks down. By the time readers reach Romans 7, they should have become accustomed to this pattern, and Paul continues to employ it through the rest of his argument (see 9:14, 19; 11:1).
Paul first deploys this strategy early in Romans 3. There he asks a cluster of rhetorical questions that constitute objections to his argument. The first is, “For what if some [Jews] did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?” (Rom 3:2). He answers this question with the phrase that becomes his standard reply: “God forbid.”
His answer to that objection, however, raises a more serious objection. “But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” (3:5). As in other instances, Paul does not think this is a good question, and he does not think that it advances a sound argument. In this case, however, Paul wishes to distance himself from the objection even more than usual. He wants people to understand that he is not endorsing it. So he inserts the parenthetical qualification, “I speak as a man.”
What Paul is saying is that this is the kind of argument that sinful humans are likely to cook up. He is imagining some guy who doesn’t want to believe the truth and who tosses this argument into the debate to confuse the issue. When Paul says, “I speak as a man,” he is saying, “This is exactly the kind of argument that that guy would make.” Paul then rejects the argument with his standard denunciation: “God forbid,” going on to expose its flaws.
In other words, Paul does not intend to make any statement at all about his authority or the inspiration of what he writes. Instead, he intends to put a bad argument, framed as a question, in context. Paul is saying that this isn’t his argument, but the kind of argument that an unbeliever would make. As in the other instances, Paul raises the question only to be able to answer it and to refute the bad thinking that it embodies.
In no sense does Paul disclaim divine authority for his teaching or divine inspiration for his writing. The text stands as a model of persuasion, with Paul dismantling every objection that sinful humans throw against his argument. As an objection to verbal inspiration, Romans 3:5 simply fails.
This essay first appeared here and is used by permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2024 22:13:03 GMT -5
Creation as Foundational
KEVIN BAUDER
When it comes to the opening chapters of Genesis, many conservative Christians spend their energy defending the text against the counter-narrative of evolution. That is right and proper: the theory of evolution entails in all its forms an utterly anti-biblical and anti-human philosophy. Nevertheless, the point of these chapters is not to contradict theories of evolution, which only became prevalent during the late Nineteenth Century. Instead, these chapters are valuable for the theological underpinning that they provide for virtually the entire system of faith and belief—including some categories that are rarely mentioned within systematic theologies.
Perhaps the most important function of the early chapters of Genesis is to introduce us to God. They show that God is Creator, and no truth of Scripture is more important than the Creator-creature distinction. Besides depicting God in terms of His power, they also show Him in His benevolence. What He makes is good, and the good is contextually understood as what is good for humans. God knows what is good, and when He knows that a good is absent (as when the man was alone), He provides it. He is also a God who blesses and, when humans sin, a God who promises a deliverer.
The early chapters of Genesis also explain both who humans are and why they were made. They are the image of God, and they were made for dominion. Within His universal kingdom, God created a world that He did not intend to govern directly. Instead, He planned for this world to be ruled mediatorially by godlike creatures. He gave them dominion, and He blessed them with authority to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth, and to subdue it. They were made to be kings and queens. They were also made to be priests, standing in the presence of God and enjoying His companionship.
These narratives also explain what went wrong with this beautiful vision. God imposed a test upon the first man and the first woman. They were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. If they ate the fruit, they would be claiming for themselves the prerogative to determine the good. Instead, God wanted them to trust Him for the good, which He abundantly provided. Rather than trusting the Creator, however, the man and woman chose to declare independence of God, choosing what seemed good to themselves. By declaring independence of God, they necessarily separated themselves from life, for their life came from God. They passed under sentence of death, a sentence that lies heavy upon humanity until this day.
In later Scriptures, the apostle Paul would appeal to these early chapters as fundamental for his doctrine of imputation (Rom 5:12ff). All humans, he claimed, sinned in Adam. That is why all humans die. Paul’s understanding of imputation also gets transferred to Christ, whose sufferings and merits are credited to His people.
The third chapter of Genesis gives the first glimpse of salvation to come. God offers hope through the seed of the woman, who will crush the head of the serpent, though not without pain. Furthermore, while God drove the man and woman out of paradise, He clothed them in skins, replacing the sustainable, plant-based garments they had fashioned for themselves. Covering the results of their sin required the shedding of blood—surely a picture of redemption to come.
According to the text, God made humanity in two sexes, both of which exhibited His image. These two sexes were made for companionship, for union, and for procreation. God chose to protect this marvelous relationship with the institution of marriage, which from the beginning necessitated exactly one man and one woman. God defined marriage in terms of a leaving and a cleaving or faithful devotion, which was subsequently to be cemented in one-flesh sexual union. Jesus and Paul both understood the creation narratives to be definitive for marriage, sex, and gender, including an order between the sexes within marriage and (later) the church.
Since human sin damaged the created world, it also introduced the problem of correctly caring for that world. For the first time, creation became recalcitrant and even dangerous. Human dominion was not entirely lost, but it was profoundly damaged. Furthermore, predatory use of the created world became possible for humans, with the result that they could destroy parts of their environment. A right understanding of both human dominion and human sin are fundamental to any genuinely useful environmentalism.
The Fall also brought scarcity into the world. Along with scarcity arose the necessity of hard labor, of exchanging goods, and of inventing various media of exchange. In other words, the discipline of economics is possible only in a post-lapsarian world, a world of scarcity. Furthermore, a right understanding of economics must take account of the necessity of labor, the reality of scarcity, and the self-seeking bent of human nature as these are communicated in the opening chapters of Genesis. A sound economics must be a biblical economics.
The opening chapters of Genesis also matter for our understanding of last things. Eschatology parallels protology. Whatever God intended to do when He created is exactly what He intends to accomplish in redemption. The end will bring us full circle to the purpose of the beginning. If indeed God intended to rule the world mediatorially through godlike creatures, then that is how things are going to turn out.
Genesis opens with the accounts of creation, the Fall, the flood, and the division of nations. These stories are in the text to make important theological points. They become the basis of doctrinal reasoning throughout the rest of Scripture. Genuine biblicists should plunder these chapters, not merely to refute false theories about origins, but to be able to answer the most important questions that people can ask.
The Moment of Truth — Steven Lawson
In his book, The Moment of Truth, Steven Lawson makes the clear argument that truth exists, it's reliable, and it reigns supreme. He clearly establishes his points from the pages and authority of holy Scripture. The book is a published collection of sermons that reads more like a book than a…
Why Do So Many People Hate the Doctrine of Creation?
Picture yourself driving onto a college campus and immediately your eyes catch a bumper sticker on the vehicle in front of you that reads, "In the beginning man created god." It's a fresh reminder that people all over the world hate the doctrine of creation—but more troubling is the fact…
Faith in Action
Yesterday, I had the privilege of preaching from Ephesians 4:25-32 in our ongoing series through Ephesians. As we have noted on multiple occasions in our study, Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus (and surrounding cities) is clearly divided into two parts. The first three chapters teach Christian doctrine while…
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 29, 2024 12:56:54 GMT -5
I, Not the Lord
Share
g3min.org/i-not-the-lord
KEVIN BAUDER
person's hand holding book page
The Bible’s claim for itself is that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16–17) and that Scripture originated in men of God being carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20–21). These words imply that inspiration extends to the words of Scripture (verbal inspiration) as well as to Scripture in all its parts (plenary inspiration) as originally written. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms, and God can neither deceive nor make mistakes. Consequently, Scripture is inerrant.
The objection has been raised, however, that some verses in the Bible disavow their own inspiration. One of these passages is supposed to be 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12. The contrast between these two verses is noteworthy. In verse 10, Paul states that the commandment that he is about to issue does not come from him, but from the Lord. In verse 12, however, he specifically says that in the following verses he is speaking, but not the Lord. Is Paul suggesting that part of his message is divinely inspired, but part of it is just his own good advice? Is he disavowing the inspiration of what he writes from verse 12 onward?
The answer to this question lies in the overall context of Paul’s argument. The believers at Corinth had evidently written to Paul, asking for his instruction about certain matters. Before answering their questions, Paul took advantage of the opportunity to offer a series of admonitions and instructions concerning issues that he saw within the Corinthian congregation. Only at 1 Corinthians 7:1 did he begin to respond to the questions from the church.
The first of those questions involved the value of singleness and the mutual duties between husbands and wives within the marriage relationship (7:1–9). The second question involved the permissibility of divorce and marital separation, particularly in a situation where a believer was married to an unbelieving spouse. The question that Paul was answering probably did not envision believers deliberately marrying unbelievers, but more likely addressed the problems that would arise when one marriage partner came to Christ but the other did not.
Paul’s answer to this question is divided into two parts. The first part lays out general instruction concerning divorces and separations (7:10–11). The second part addresses specifically the question of how a believer who is in a mixed marriage should behave (7:12–16).
For the first part of his answer (dealing with divorce and separation), Paul did not really say anything new. He surely recognized that the Scriptures already addressed this situation in unambiguous terms. The Old Testament clearly declared that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). Furthermore, this was a question that Jesus had personally answered on multiple occasions during His earthly ministry (Matt 5:21; 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18). According to Jesus, even the Old Testament procedure for divorce (Deut 24:1–4) was only a concession to the hardness of human hearts.
When introducing this teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul used the formula, “I command, yet not I, but the Lord” (7:10). What he was doing was drawing attention to the fact that divorce and remarriage in general was already a matter of settled teaching. Paul did not have to command anything new. All he had to do was to point to the teachings of Jesus, “the Lord.” These teachings were sufficient to decide the issue. Leaving aside the possibility of exceptions (as in Matthew’s version of Jesus’ teaching, “except for sexual immorality”), the general rule could be summarized as “no divorce, no remarriage.”
Nevertheless, the general teaching of Jesus on divorce and separation did not fully anticipate the situation in which the Corinthians now found themselves. In at least some instances, one spouse in a marriage had believed on Christ, while the other had not. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, the unbelieving spouse was overtly hostile to the gospel, perhaps to the point of forbidding the believer to fulfill Christian duties. This was the real question for the Corinthians. This was the real problem that they needed to solve.
Here Paul could not quote a specific teaching that Jesus (“the Lord”) had offered during His earthly ministry. But that did not prevent Paul from articulating an answer. On the contrary, he offered a very specific answer, the gist of which was that the believing spouse must remain with the unbeliever as long as the unbeliever was willing to allow it (7:12–13). In this way the believer could have a sanctifying influence both upon the unbeliever and upon any children born to the union (7:14, 16). Nevertheless, if the unbeliever abandoned the believing spouse, the believer was not obligated to pursue the unbeliever (7:15).
In these verses Paul was speaking new truth into a new situation. In doing so, he made it clear that his message was not part of Jesus’s earthly teaching but was being delivered from Paul in his apostolic capacity (7:12). Even though the answer was not directly from Jesus, it was nevertheless authoritative. Paul was issuing commands, and he expected his readers to obey what he wrote.
In other words, the apostle Paul was putting his own teaching on the same level of authority as the teaching of Jesus. In effect he was saying, “Here is what Jesus taught; now do this. And here is what I teach; do this too.” Far from minimizing the authority of his words, Paul is maximizing that authority.
Paul’s answer in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16 stands as part of Scripture. Even though it is not based on the earthly words of Jesus, it is nevertheless God-breathed. When Paul wrote it, he was being carried along by the Holy Spirit. Verse 12 does not disavow the inspiration of the text. All it does is to distinguish the earthly words of Jesus from the words of the apostles who were His representatives. Clearly, however, the scriptural words of the apostles are as divinely inspired and authoritative as the words of Jesus Himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 29, 2024 17:48:42 GMT -5
Canonicity and the New Testament
Share
g3min.org/canonicity-and-the-new-testament/
KEVIN BAUDER
Bible Covenants
Recognizing the canonicity of the Old Testament writings is relatively easy. We can accept the evaluations made by Israel about which writings are authoritative. These evaluations have been endorsed by Jesus and the apostles. Israel has handed the Church an intact canon for the Old Testament.
Similarly, we can follow the example of Jesus and the apostles in their usage of the apocryphal books. They were surely aware of these documents, which (among other things) narrate important aspects of Israel’s history. Nevertheless, the Jews of Jesus’ day did not accept these writings as Scripture. Jesus never cited or used them at all. Aside from a possible allusion or two, the apostles never referenced them and certainly did not endorse them as authoritative. No Christian body formally recognized any apocryphal books as canonical before the sixteenth century.
Recognizing the canonicity of the New Testament books requires a different approach. While there is some mutual recognition among the apostles of the authority of each other’s writings (e.g., 2 Pet 3:15–16), the apostolic church never provided an authoritative list of authoritative writings. The apostles themselves were aware of the problem of forged documents written under their names (2 Thess 2:2). Also, other non-apostolic books were being circulated among the churches (e.g., the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). By the second century, heretics such as the Gnostics had begun to produce documents for which they claimed authority (the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.). The proliferation of writings forced Christian leaders and thinkers to ask which documents were genuinely inspired. Furthermore, persecution underlined the importance of knowing which books were worth giving one’s life for and which were not.
Over time, Christians came to use at least four tests to determine whether a writing qualified as canonical. The first of these was the test of apostolicity. To be recognized as inspired, a document had to have been written by an apostle or by someone with a close connection to the apostolic community. Most of the books that became the New Testament were written directly by apostles. The few exceptions (Mark, Luke, James, Jude) were written by people close to the apostles. Mark is supposed to have used Peter as a direct source. Luke was a close associate of Paul, and he evidently had access to Mary’s testimony. James and Jude were both half-brothers of Jesus, and both were seen as prominent within the early Christian church.
The test of apostolicity was simplified by the fact that the apostles had written to several churches that still possessed their writings. During the early third century, Tertullian claimed that the authentic writings of the apostles could be found in places like Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Rome (Prescription Against Heretics 36). He meant that these churches held either the original documents written by the apostles or at least that they had unmodified copies.
These churches and others had been founded by the apostles themselves. The existence of such churches made possible a second test. Before being recognized as authoritative, any document had to be demonstrably consistent with apostolic teaching. This is the argument that Irenaeus advanced against the Gnostics during the late second century.
Irenaeus argued that the apostolic churches were well known (Against Heresies 3.3–4). In these churches, the apostles themselves trained the first pastors, and those pastors trained their successors. The chain of pastors could be traced link by link (Irenaeus did trace it for the church at Rome). Irenaeus further argued that in his time, all the pastors in all the apostolic churches were still unified in their teaching. He reasoned that this unity of teaching could not have been contrived; it must preserve accurately the teaching of the apostles. This unity contrasted with the traditions of the Gnostics, whose teachings contradicted not only the apostolic churches but also each other. If one wanted to identify authoritative writings, all that one had to do was to compare a particular document to the universal teaching of the apostolic churches. A writing that contradicted apostolic doctrine must be rejected.
Of course, Irenaeus’s approach would become weaker with each passing generation. He failed to appreciate how quickly the teaching of the apostolic churches themselves could become corrupted. Nevertheless, during the second century the presence of a live tradition among the apostolic churches provided an important brake on the adoption and canonization of heretical books.
The first two tests of canonicity are (1) apostolicity and (2) consistency with apostolic doctrine. The third test is use: before being recognized as Scripture, a book must have been received, recognized, circulated, and used within the apostolic churches. Of course, this test also implied that those churches preserved the book.
Paul apparently wrote some epistles that were not preserved, circulated, or widely used. He seems to have written four Corinthian letters in total. He probably also wrote a separate epistle to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16). None of these was preserved or widely circulated. This failure does not mean that some book of Scripture was lost. Rather, these books were lost because they were not inspired Scripture in the first place. If, say, 3 Corinthians were discovered next week, Christians would not be obligated to add it to the New Testament—though they would doubtless find it interesting.
Some writings took longer for the churches to recognize and circulate than others. The anonymous book of Hebrews is an example. James and Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were others. Questions were also raised about the book of Revelation. In time, however, the churches circulated and used these documents, and they were recognized as authoritative works. Other books such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were used occasionally but never widely recognized as authoritative.
These three tests of canonicity (apostolicity, consistency, and recognition) have all been completed in the past. While the results could in theory be revisited at any time, in practice no one now is in a position to dispute the results. The canon is closed, and the Bible has a back cover.
Still, one more test of canonicity remains. John Calvin refers to this test as the “witness of the Holy Spirit.” Calvin said,
The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. (Institutes 1.7.4. Battles translation)
This final test should not be ignored. While it is not a proof for unbelievers, it is a real source of assurance for believers. We need have no doubt that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are indeed the true and only Word of God today.
|
|
