Thursday, April 01, 2010
Reformed Theology and the Bible
Butchart Gardens, Brentwood Bay, BC
PhD edit
Otto Weber (1955)(1981) mentions the problem of ‘Biblicism’ that as an approach within some evangelical churches reviews the Bible out of context at times with rigid literalness of interpretation. Weber (1955)(1981: 17). This approach often negates theology as irrelevant. Weber (1955)(1981: 17). Weber makes an excellent point as through academic theological blogging, for example, I have found that some evangelical fundamentalists downplay the use of theology, commentaries and any scholarship. They often prefer a plain literal read of the Bible and are sceptical of any scholarship that may challenge their views. John Frame recognizes in light of Biblicism that there is still value in traditions, confessions and church history, although he believes in the sufficiency of the Scripture. Frame (2002: 10). Biblicism is a wrong extreme but Frame desires that Scripture be correctly understood.
Edward E. Hindson, as a Professor of Religion, wrote the ‘Introduction’ to Presbyterian theologian William G.T. Shedd’s (1874-1890)(1980) text Dogmatic Theology and charges that Shedd’s ‘profound insight into theological truth was no mere matter of casual intellectual reflection.’ Hindson (1874-1890)(1980: iv). This is a correct and reasonable approach to the difficult academic field of theology and Reformed theology. Careful and thorough scholarship is required. Theology is not to be done at the expense of the Scripture, but within a correct study of that Scripture. Shedd reasons that ‘methods of investigation are continually undergoing correction and modification’ and this can lead to better organization of the subject. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 4 Volume 1). Theology is always considered in the light of cultural and historical setting of the day, the implication being that a culture will influence theology and therefore theology needs to be scrutinized with this concept always in mind. This however, should never alter essential Biblical doctrines found by studying Scripture in context.
The doctrine of sola scriptura is the Reformed and Protestant counter to the traditionalism of the Roman Catholic Church. This concept was originally applied by Reformers to particular Roman Catholic doctrines assumed to be over influenced by tradition. Weber reasons the Reformation standard of sola scriptura firmly upheld Reformed views against counter propositions. Weber (1955)(1981: 113-114). The Scripture is authoritative because it is the vehicle by which the Holy Spirit speaks, and therefore has divine authority. The Bible is the product of the Christian community that produced it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit. Schreck (1984: 42). Protestants and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope, believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Schreck (1984: 42). Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond Reform. Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).
From my experience in the UK academic system (MPhil/PhD) Biblicism is assumed by many (not all) British academics to take place with many North American Christians also assumed to be fundamentalists and evangelicals. I reason I faced this with my PhD review even as a Reformed moderate conservative. I was called Biblically naive, even though I was advised by advisors not to concentrate on Biblical Studies but on Theology and Philosophy of Religion. I am not Biblically naive and my first two Christian degrees were largely Biblical Studies and I won a scholarship and Great Distinction. I reason these assumptions explain some of the initial negative critiques I received at Manchester and Wales as I was forced prove I could interpret Scripture correctly and objectively and at the same time not become liberal.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
HINDSON, EDWARD E. (1874-1890)(1980) ‘Introduction’ within SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volumes 1 and 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Rare comic of Superman debut fetches $1.5 million
From CNN:
'The sale of the Superman book marks the third time this year that a record was set for the sale of a comic book. The other copy of "Action Comics" No. 1 held onto its record for only three days before a comic book featuring Batman's debut sold for $75,000 more at an auction in Dallas, Texas.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteVery nice photo of Butchart Gardens.
The hunter and dog photo is humorous.
Weber makes an excellent point as through academic theological blogging, for example, I have found that some evangelical fundamentalists downplay the use of theology, commentaries and any scholarship.
This makes me think of a comment a Jevovah's Witness made on my blog site yesterday. He said:
"What matters is correspondence with the best Greek and Hebrew texts, not the particular credentials of the translator. Many Bible verses do not take a "scholar" to translate them. Remember, the Bible was written, in large part, by ordinary people, not "scholars." And God's Word is for all people, not just "scholars."
Besides, "scholars" often disagree with one another. Not one of them is infallible. But the overall theme of the Bible is right there for any reader, and the truth will not be found in just one or a few verses, but in the many that correspond and agree with the Bible's overall theme.
In other words, the question should be, "How accurate is this verse (or these verses) translated according to the original texts?' not "Who was the translator."
For all their scholarship, the translators of Christendom consistently translate some verses incorrectly, because they try to translate them according to their particular theology, not according to what the texts actually say."
Russ,
ReplyDeleteYour Revolver Map (rotating globe) shows me in Sebring. I am about 3 hours from Sebring.
'Russ, Very nice photo of Butchart Gardens.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Wish I took it.
'The hunter and dog photo is humorous.'
My Shepherd-Husky would have probably walked in front of my rifle.
'This makes me think of a comment a Jevovah's Witness made on my blog site yesterday. He said: "What matters is correspondence with the best Greek and Hebrew texts, not the particular credentials of the translator.'
Half-truth. Even with the best texts one needs a translator that knows what he/she is doing. This requires education and objectivity.
Imagine lacking those qualities what one gets as a strong possibility.
Oh...cultic theology. Surprise, surprise.
'Many Bible verses do not take a "scholar" to translate them. Remember, the Bible was written, in large part, by ordinary people, not "scholars." And God's Word is for all people, not just "scholars."'
The Bible is for all people and can be understood in basic terms by all people of sound mind. Deeper understanding requires scholarly research by some in order to share with others.
'Besides, "scholars" often disagree with one another. Not one of them is infallible.'
True, and the same can be stated for non-scholars. So, I will go with the scholars and take my chances. My educated chances.
'But the overall theme of the Bible is right there for any reader, and the truth will not be found in just one or a few verses, but in the many that correspond and agree with the Bible's overall theme.'
Scripture of course had to be correctly translated by a scholar, to some degree, in a language for one to understand.
'In other words, the question should be, "How accurate is this verse (or these verses) translated according to the original texts?' not "Who was the translator."'
False. The credentials and objectivity of translator reflect upon interpretation.
'For all their scholarship, the translators of Christendom consistently translate some verses incorrectly, because they try to translate them according to their particular theology, not according to what the texts actually say."'
Sweeping statement lacking support. Some scholars are more objective than others. Certainly non-scholars could be guilty of mistranslation and would be more likely to do so and they are less likely to know what they are doing at a high level.
Thanks, Jeff.
'Russ,
ReplyDeleteYour Revolver Map (rotating globe) shows me in Sebring. I am about 3 hours from Sebring.'
It was free. I suppose I got what I paid for...:)
True, and the same can be stated for non-scholars. So, I will go with the scholars and take my chances. My educated chances.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Good point.
Maybe I will steal some of your replies and use them to respond to the JW.
It was free. I suppose I got what I paid for...:)
Over on S&T, his Revolver Globe Map shows me correctly in Ocala. Maybe you need to ask him what he's doing that you're not. ;)
Well, now your Revolver Map correctly shows me in Ocala. Wow, you and the S&T guy must communicate quick!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, for my readers that do not read my other theology blog, the 'evil' satire and theology, there is some interesting commentary over there presently in regard to Rick B and Landover Baptist Church.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Jeff.
satire and theology
From Facebook:
ReplyDeleteI worked on Canada Census a few years ago. There was a story at the short course from a previous Census worker that was invited inside by some people and then bear sprayed.
We were told not to report any drug growing operations.
Now, we wore huge Canada badges while working. My manager stated I did 10x the work of the average worker, and I refused to go down blind alleys where I could be ambushed by dogs, etc. I would always leave a census form somewhere though. I would also work at night which many would not. I would quit before 9 PM.
I was invited in for a drink twice and accepted (I did carry a metal bar in my case). The second time it was a party.
One biker told me to get lost and I said basically 'fine I am just doing my job'. I informed him that my manager could come back with an RCMP officer, as I was instructed to say.
A neighbour originally from Eastern Europe tried to send his dog on me at the door, but his wife stopped him. The dummy did not realize I lived right across the street from him and he would be in big trouble if I would have been bit. I would have called the police.
Most people were friendly, but some persons became really offended by someone from the government. But, I can understand to a point and think for example, that the taxes are too high in Canada.
One guy on his lawn was yelling at me stating that I wrong to come to the neighbourhood after dinner, and I stated, something along the lines of, 'Well I could come and bug you earlier at dinner time'.
I did not have a cell phone then, but I would not do such a job without one now.
I suppose the problem of disputes over interpretation was the reason for the Catholic Church resisting availability of the printed Bible during the Reformation.
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem within protestantism -- so many divergent views, denominations and independent churches.
Protestants need to eventually be able to join together with others that agree on the essentials.
Very interesting read on the Bible and interpretation. I think its important that whenever one does a study of scripture, they begin by looking up the main words in the verse in the original Hebrew or Greek using a lexicon and then after that form an opinion of what the verse is saying in its proper context and with the help of scholarly commentaries form a conclusion.
ReplyDelete-Thought Police-
Greasy Boy with muscles, How original, How Buff, very cool stuff!
ReplyDelete-B.U.F.F. Int. Inc.-
'I suppose the problem of disputes over interpretation was the reason for the Catholic Church resisting availability of the printed Bible during the Reformation.
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem within protestantism -- so many divergent views, denominations and independent churches.
Protestants need to eventually be able to join together with others that agree on the essentials.'
I favour Scripture and related tools being available for the non-scholar. The tools can often assist in interpretation.
'Very interesting read on the Bible and interpretation. I think its important that whenever one does a study of scripture, they begin by looking up the main words in the verse in the original Hebrew or Greek using a lexicon and then after that form an opinion of what the verse is saying in its proper context and with the help of scholarly commentaries form a conclusion.
ReplyDelete-Thought Police-'
Yes, looking at the original languages is often crucial for proper interpretation.
Thanks TP.
Greasy Boy with muscles, How original, How Buff, very cool stuff!
ReplyDelete-B.U.F.F. Int. Inc.-
You two could have a grease off.
Interesting read. Picture of the dog is hilarious
ReplyDeleteThanks, M.D.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter Sunday.
Christopher Walken shows how to deal with the census taker...
ReplyDeleteAt least he is entertaining, as opposed to intimidating.
ReplyDeleteMan, I would hate to have to deal with permits as well. I would need a lot more pay.
Well, it has started:
ReplyDeleteChristian preacher fined for
speaking on homosexuality
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI listen to TalkSport and the BBC online radio and hear about stuff like this as well.
A reason not to use my British citizenship and live in the UK.
Well, it's official, Russ. Terrorists are no longer our enemies.
ReplyDeleteIt states:
ReplyDelete'WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."'
Thanks, Jeff.
Canada has been attacking free speech for some time via its human rights tribunals, which Mark Steyn has written extensively about, having been threatened by a tribunal himself for expressing his own thoughts on the spread of Islam in Europe.
ReplyDeleteThe latest outrage is comedians getting persecuted for telling the wrong jokes:
"But, of course, since becoming a beacon of “restraint” and “civility,” Canada now prosecutes jokes. The British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal, under the same commissar who presided over a lengthy analysis of the “tone” of my own jokes, is currently trying stand-up comedian Guy Earle for his allegedly “homophobic” put-down of a heckler. Mr. Earle isn’t a right-wing hater like me and Miss Coulter. Until he fell afoul of his Sapphic heckler, he appears to have held conventionally Trudeaupian views. Left to his own devices, he would be more likely to essay an anti-Bush gag than one of Miss Coulter’s camel jests. But he’s wound up in court anyway, having lost three years of his life and facing $20,000 in punitive damages for a remark he made in the course of a stage act for which he received a $50 bar tab. The B.C. Supreme Court advised the tribunal against proceeding with their show trial on the grounds that it was not clear they had jurisdiction. So the tribunal went ahead anyway. Susan Cole’s Canada doesn’t “work” for Guy Earle. In fact, it’s destroyed him. “You better hope and pray that you aren’t next,” he writes. “And yet no one cares.”
Very true. Canada is now a land that prosecutes comedians for their jokes. You’d think that Mr. Earle’s fellow comics might be a little disturbed about where this leads. Yet the fellows who pride themselves on their “edgy,” “transgressive” comedy are remarkably silent on what’s happening in Vancouver. "
Full Maclean's article
There seems to be too many radical liberals with political power in this country.
ReplyDeleteThey often prefer a plain literal read of the Bible and are sceptical of any scholarship that may challenge their views.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read in Genesis where it says God created the world in 6 days, I take that to mean literal 24-hour periods, and, as I have compared it to the other cases of the word "day" in Genesis, that has strengthened my belief that it is to be taken as a literal day. I don't believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are supposed to be taken allegorically.
However, not everything in Scripture is to be taken literally, such as some of the symbolic or allegorical language, such as in the book of Revelation.
Another example is that Muslims tend to take the Bible in a strict literal sense, just as they take the Qur'an in a literal sense. That is one reason that, when they hear the term, "Son of God," they say that God cannot have a Son, because God does not have a wife.
Theology is not to be done at the expense of the Scripture, but within a correct study of that Scripture.
ReplyDeleteA very loose example might possibly be one of the comments a Jehovah's Witness made in the comments for one of my past articles. He said:
"I hear Trinitarians all the time quoting me John 10:30 but don’t seem to want to deal with “how they are one,” as we discover in John 17:22, 23.
We are one, JUST AS, or in the same way as they are “hen.” One in purpose and united agreement is the most natural way to understand this. We do not have to think one in actual being which makes no scriptural sense. Can you at least give me this?
I will try to wrap up a few things you shared that I haven’t touched on yet. But first, to answer your questions: Let me tell you at this time that my faith doesn’t hinge on the fact if Michael is another name for the heavenly Christ or not.
Many TRINITARIANS believe that Christ was Michael. I do think there are many similarities that seem to point that Christ is the chief of all the angels and he does things we would expect of Christ.
Do I think he is a “mere angel” as one of our outspoken critics tries to promote? In no way is this true as we clearly see in Hebrews 1.
Do I think that Jesus was one of the spirit sons of God with his heavenly partners but a unique spirit son of God? Yes.
Do I believe he was exalted over them? Yes. But do I believe he was “the beginning of the creation of God?” Yes.
I know Trinitarians do not like that scriptural truth but that is precisely what Jesus was. I definitely believe Jesus was “a messenger” or spokesman of God, which is actually what “angel” means. Many have negative connotations from the term “angel” or “messenger” but not me.
You went on to ask, “How can an angel also be a god, or become a god?” They are obviously not God, “the God” in the ultimate sense. You know that I believe that YHWH or Jehovah is God.
On another occasion I can demonstrate that other spirit sons of God or angels can be called “a god,” because “god” means simply “mighty one or strong one.” It was definitely used toward Jesus Christ and other men with authority such as Judges as we can see in the sacred inspired documents.
This does not mean we are polytheists as you are thinking our position would suggest.
Like Jesus, we understand that his Father and God is “the only true God,” (John 17:3) in the fullest, superlative degree. But we recognize there are other divine, god-like ones that Jehovah has placed in high position that can be considered “gods” or “powerful ones” in a much lower sense without compromising our monotheistic view."
Protestant and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope, believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteRelated:
"Benedict XVI “Hailed for Praying like Muslims Toward Mecca,” Dec 1, 2006 — ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca ‘like Muslims.’… ‘The Pope's dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. ‘In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,’...’” (Reuters.com, Fri, Dec. 1, 2006)
"According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e.., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin." (from Wikpedia)
"An indulgence, in Catholic theology, is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasure House of Merit accumulated by Jesus' sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints. They are granted for specific good works and prayers.
Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early Church.[3] More exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.
Abuses in granting indulgences were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517)." (from Wikipedia)
"On all other Christian societies the Church of Rome pronounces a sentence of spiritual outlawry. She alone is the Church, and beyond her pale there is no salvation. She recognises but one pastor and but one fold; and those who are not the sheep of the Pope of Rome, cannot be the sheep of Christ, and are held as being certainly cut off from all the blessings of grace now, and from all the hopes of eternal life hereafter. In the hands of Peter's successor are lodged the keys of heaven; and no one can enter but those whom he is pleased to admit; and he admits none but good Catholics, who believe that a consecrated wafer is God, and that he himself is God's vicegerent, and infallible. All others are heathens and heretics, accursed of God, and most certainly accursed of Rome." (from No Salvation out of the Church of Rome)
Thanks much, Jeff from Thoughts and Theology.
ReplyDeleteFrom PhD research, which is not exhaustive at all, most conservative Hebrew Bible scholars would not agree with the plain literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. From my reading most conservatives would not take it as allegorical either, as it may be too strong of a term and may be connected to myth. It seems that much of Genesis 1-3 is taken as figurative literally, meaning the events occurred but not all necessarily in plain literal historical terms.
There is plenty of room for various interpretations, but myth is not acceptable. Adam and Eve are essentially historically true, being connected to the fall and the need for salvation in Christ (Romans 5).
Day is a tricky term, and as a Hebrew Bible scholar informed me in regard to Genesis 2: 4:
4(D)This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in (E)the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
Day as we are discussing is 'yom' in Hebrew.
Well, I respect you for dealing with the Jehovah's Witness.
ReplyDeleteThat is a lot of cultic theology to work through.
Thanks, Jeff of Thoughts and Theology.
'"Benedict XVI “Hailed for Praying like Muslims Toward Mecca,” Dec 1, 2006 — ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca ‘like Muslims.’… ‘The Pope's dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. ‘In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,’...’” (Reuters.com, Fri, Dec. 1, 2006)'
ReplyDeleteI remember criticizing this on satire and theology.
An answer to anyone that thinks Rome is the only way to salvation...
John 14: 6
6Jesus said to him, "I am (F)the way, and (G)the truth, and (H)the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Thanks for the assistance, Jeff.
My review will be quite different from Russ'. Everyone seemed happy to showcase the new Langley temple-
ReplyDeletethe sheer amount of guides and volunteers was intriguing. The
structure and the ornate furnishings seemed to impress and
captivate some of our group- almost designed to draw new recruits into something large and
awe inspiring- to be part of something bigger than themselves.
Though everyone was welcoming I did feel a bit unnerved at the
presence of some staff upstairs, watching you intently, making certain you didn't vandalize the
temple in some way or wander somewhere you shouldn't be.
I can understand that only members would be allowed into the most private worship chambers- I just felt awkward and out of place as
a result. I don't have a background in theology so I'm not qualified to comment on the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Everyone smiled and was gracious, the interior of the temple was more beautiful than the exterior and maybe that was the problem with me- it seemed the
hosts wanted the focus on the structure and elaborate furnishings and not on doctrine.
Maybe as you ask more questions and spend more time in the belief system you would find out more about specific aspects of what the
Mormons believe and why.
Thanks to Russ/Kingpin68 for driving that night.
"Zombie"
Zombie is reviewing the LDS Langley Temple tour in regard to the next post:
ReplyDeleteNext Post