Just a note of (*sigh) clarification again, after saying it a few times I guess I still wasn’t clear: I am not saying that one must believe that Scripture is true before believing in Christ. What I am saying is, that the two go hand in hand. Some Christians come to believe because they are convinced of the truth of the Bible. I am one of those. Others come to believe by witnessing, preaching and teaching, and discover the truth of the Scriptures afterward as the Holy Spirit guides them. Either way, same result.

These things cannot be disputed, though: 1) Jesus taught that the Scriptures (OT) were the Word of God, and confirmed their authority. 2) Jesus promised to give the Spirit of Truth to the Apostles, and those they directed, so that the NT could be written inspired and inerrant just like the OT was. The Apostles were a special case, not to be repeated. 3) The Holy Spirit gives every believer illumination of the Bible, and it is expected that we will cherish and study it as God’s Word, and as a means of grace, teaching, correction, equipping, etc. all the stuff that the NT writers talk about. The illumination given us is not perfect (unlike that of the Apostles). Our sin nature interferes. Interpretations become muddled. We disagree on things. We argue about things that the Bible is not clear on, and which in the end may prove to be irrelevant, or not. Sure we’ll all sin to some degree when speaking about God’s Word. But we try and work through this stuff because we are Christians and we’re supposed to.

We’re also supposed to have unity of belief on the essentials. Christ prayed to the Father for us in this regard. Despite doctrinal differences, if you look at the church through history, once it was agreed upon what the essentials were, they pretty much remained intact, even in the RCC where they’ve been distorted, but again, not beyond recognition.

Erk, sorry for the double post, folks. I don’t know how I did that.

Could one of you wizards do your hand-waving thing and, you know, feed the XML a little RSS blogroll or some sauteed !337z r0xx0rs LOL!!111!! to remove the second post? [Update: Thanks!]

Read stuff Alex writes (I haven’t forgotten your post on perception—it’s coming). He knows how to say stuff like “begging the question” the right way.

On a slightly tangential subject, I finally posted the More »« Less, so if any of y’all are interested in that subject, read and comment.

Michael wrote: I am the worst writer in the world. (...) OK…enough. I’m gone for three days. Have a nice time.

Well, finally. Now the good writers can get a word in edge-wise.

On a serious note, from my stool at the kiddie table, may I just say to Judd: applause. (Although for my own sake, I’m very nervous that he might get Peter’s job at the pearly gates. NOT THAT HE WOULDN’T DO A GREAT JOB, MIND YOU. I’m just a little less confident of my own standing, that’s all. Carry on.)

So…tomorrow is “Guys Movie Night” at our church. The main feature is Chariots of Fire. It’s been 20 years since I’ve seen this. All I really remember about it is the soundtrack. Remember when Vangelis was doing every single freaking score in Hollywood? Blade Runner, Missing, the remake of The Bounty. And Cosmos on TV.

So I will probably compromise my ethical standards and attend said Guys Movie Night. Anyone else in here have these events at your church? Any memorable, um, memories?

RLP kills me. Scroll down past the picture and read Everett Joseph Smith Was A Real Boy, a superb account of a slice of pastoral ministry. A very moving piece…

[Excerpt]

When you are the pastor of a church, you are many things. You are an agent of grace and hope, a repository of spiritual and scriptural wisdom, and a gatekeeper at big events like weddings and funerals. Somehow people weave all of these into a complex image of you. You are all things to all people.

And sometimes you are the Black Rider of Death. People indulge in all sorts of denial while they are waiting for the minister. It�s a blessed procrastination that helps them make it for a short time. And then you appear, framed in the hospital doorway, bible in hand… Let the grieving begin.

Thanks Doug. Appreciated. I still suck.

I also think that the Israelites, like the disciples, likely got things wrong from time to time, but God’s purposes and truth still come through. I don’t feel we have to uphold the inspiration of anything apart from how it relates to Christ. I think that idea of “perfect revelation” is a modernistic curse, and not necessary to present the Gospel message. Ted has said, in effect, we must accept the Bible as inerrant before we accept Jesus. I think that is remarkable, and ought to be thought about carefully. I don’t believe it, and I can’t believe it. I only believe the Bible because of Jesus. He’s the ONLY reason I buy any of it.

OK. I’m on my way to hell. Cya.

Michael: I should have been more clear. I was in reality responding to this quote from your post…

“I’m unclear to what extent God was actually involved in some of the violence and cruelty ordered up in the Old Testament.”

My response – If the OT says God said to order it up, He ordered it up. I still have that much inerrantism left in my blood…

I am the worst writer in the world. I’m going to quit. I swear. This is the end.

Douglas: I said pretty clearly that the OT revealed God’s process of teaching his character, attributes, covenant, etc to the chosen people. And that the whole business ends up yearning for more. John 1:18. Hebrews 1:1-4. Hebrews 7-10. All of the Gospel of John. I mean…

ESV Hebrews 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

Colossians 2:16-17 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

I’m not insulting the OT. I’m trying to take a deeply Christian view of it.

OK…enough. I’m gone for three days. Have a nice time. Someone change the mast quote.

Michael your latest essay �When Loving You Is Killing Me: Thoughts On Pastoring The Small Church� deals with some issues that I have been discussing with my friends. As you know I just left a Church that is making the transition from small country church to a bigger more active church. I saw God doing awesome things, while I was there, and it was very hard to leave. It is possible for these churches to change. I love the local church with all of her wonderful warts.
I have friends searching for churches to pastor and they are scared they will end up in a family chapel. We discussed these churches in seminary and I think they are horrible for new/young pastors to work with. The people in these churches burn so many out of the ministry. The pastors are not perfect either. They make their fare share of mistakes but it is so refreshing to see a church that will be patient with a new pastor.
I have one friend now who is a great preacher. He already has an mdiv but is currently serving as an associate pastor and is going to pursue his Dmin. His thinking is after serving as an associate pastor and getting the Dr. in front of his name he will be able to get a church that is beyond the family chapel status. I believe he should be pastoring now and think it is a shame he is not in a pulpit every Sunday but I understand the only churches willing to hire him now are ones he probably does not want to be in. Is this a horrible way to think or a practical road to follow? It seems real unspiritual but I really cannot blame him for doing it.

Yet another Tom Wright must read. I blogged about it at my place. Quite good and something, as I wrote, I wish he would come and say to United Methodists at our next General Conference.

Some so-called inerrantists out there are listening to some so-called postmodernists, and are getting scared. The pomos sometimes sound frighteningly like liberals. We all know what happens when you become theologically liberal. The inerrantists are circling the wagons, pronouncing anathemas. They refuse to depart from the faith once delivered to the saints. Or from the teaching of their fathers.

Pretty good sense, actually. You go, inerrantists. The liberals are definitely capitalizing on pomo language. You’re right to be suspicious.

However, if any of you are interested in discernment, and would like to have a little better sense of whether pomo Christianity is actually apostasy or not, here are a few hints.

Michael said, “God reveals himself IMPERFECTLY in the Old Testament record, and passages like Numbers 5 are part of the OT ‘yearning’ for God to come down and reveal himself in a way that is accessible to all who would believe.”

I’m not sure I buy the line of reasoning in this post here. Was the revelation of God in the OT not in full? Certainly, else there would be no place for Christ. But the OT Law was a revelation of God to His people that was accessible to all. That was the point of Sinai and the recording of the Law in the Pentateuch – if they couldn’t all read it, at least it was to be read aloud and taught by the Levites.

I think the best context to understand this sort of passage is to remember that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of LAW. Yes, my Presby/Reformed friends, there is grace in it, but on the whole it is a long list of commands – with harsh injunctions to back them up. The revelation of God in the Mosaic Covenant is one of holiness and justice. The “waters of bitterness” seem cruel, but heck, we ALL deserve instant death and condemnation to hell from conception onwards! Anything less than that is grace!

I don’t expect unbelievers to buy that. I’ve given up on explaining all of God’s ways to believers (or even understanding them myself). You can’t explain or justify a holy God to an unholy person (and everybody, believers or no, falls into that category). The only theodicy that has any power or meaning is the Cross. You don’t like the waters of bitterness? Don’t explain it away, run to the cross. You don’t like God ordering Canaanites to the slaughter? Run to the Cross, before your turn comes up. You don’t like God not explaining Himself to Job? Go to the Cross, where He didn’t even explain Himself to His own Son. Eventually, if you try to “figure it all out”, you either dilute the impact of God’s word or get so haughty that you miss the sheer mystery, incomprehensibility, and scandal of it all. If God didn’t want us to be scandalized, He wouldn’t have died on a Cross, eh?

(This ought to put me back in Josh’s good graces… ;-} )

Dale, thanks for the list. A quick response.

1) The age of many of the works cited has to be taken into consideration on two levels.

A. A bias towards postmil and preterism. (Both fine and legit interpretations, btw)

B. A lack of contemporary knowledge of the situation in Asia Minor in the first century. This is significant. What has been learned in the past 50 years is an important part of the concensus.

2) The inclusion of F.F. Bruce and Bultmann makes me suspicious. That these scholars entertained the early date seems reasonable, but it is hard for me to believe both rejected the later date. I’d like more on those two.

3) Jay Adams? :)

4) For readers, what we are talking about here are two things:

A) Does the overall design and content of the book of Revelation betray any clues to what had or had not happened in Jerusalem in the Roman War?

B) Does “coded” material in the book that apparently refers to Nero indicate a Neronian persecuation, rather than a later persecution under Domitian?

The current concensus is:

A) The book does not give a clear indication of the status events in Jerusalem, but the concensus is that Israel has been destroyed and temple worship is over.

B) The current view is that there was a) a general not specific or intense- Domitian persecution in Asia Minor revolving around the Imperial Cult, and this is the background of the churches in Rev 2-3. It fits what we know of those cities later in the first century. b) Domitian was seen as Nero “resurrected” and the Neronian code is being applied to Nero. This is the best way to understand a number of statements about “the beast.”

5) I might mention that the Early Church citations of Revelation don’t support an early date at all, but a later one.

Dale knows all this, and it is just shop talk, but it is interesting to those who don’t just read Left Behind for their views on the Bible’s most controversial book. Thanks Dale.

John at HWS reposes the Numbers 5 question, and gets a good answer in the second comment.

I’d say something like this:

The Bible is a very odd accumulation of writings. The value of much of it is clear, such as the Gospels or the epistles. To the ordinary reader, the value of some of the Old Testament, however, is not as clear, and anyone who reads parts of the early history of Israel, and some of the case laws and rituals, will reasonably ask if they are supposed to believe that God- the God Jesus tells us about- is the same God who is ordering people to be hacked up and women to be given bitter water tests for adultery? To not ask that question is to be a poor reader and not serious about the question “What is God like?”

If you have a “flat Bible” view that says all of scripture is inspired in the same way with equal significance, then you have a problem in passages like this that I can’t solve. I don’t believe in such a view of inspiration. I believe that, on one level, the Bible is a totally human record of things people believed and did. I’m unclear to what extent God was actually involved in some of the violence and cruelty ordered up in the Old Testament. But my approach basically works out this way:

God chooses a man (Abram), and turns his family into a nation. God covenants into a relationship with this nation. The purpose of that covenant nation is to know, worship, and demonstrate particular truths/realities about God. This would include his character, attributes, holiness and mercy. Clearly, this is a process with a lot of risk, and a lot of imperfection. The “chosen people” demonstrated an understandable tendency to resist the entire project at times, and to go fanatical in pursuing it at others. In all of this, God is teaching and shaping them through leaders, events, experiences and laws. The Old Testament is the record of that process, and even with its considerable record of imperfection and many outrageous passages, one can still see and hear God and what he is doing. When we arrive at Jesus, we see the point of it all.

In the law, in particular, God often ordains things that seem extremely strange. Given that this was a primitive and prescientific culture, rituals like Numbers 5 probably seemed fairly ordinary at the time. But the purpose at the heart of the matter is clear: God is a God who requires fidelity to his covenant, and who will try the heart to judge by truth. This lesson is repeated in many ways, and forms the backdrop of a great deal of covenant imagery and prophetic communication. It is an essential lesson, and God chose to teach it in ways that primitive people would understand. A lecture series apparently wasn’t considered.

It is fascinating that later in the Bible, Jesus is confronted with an adultrous woman in John 8, and with the claims of the crowd to have an absolute right of judgment. The well known result was, basically, an appeal to God’s knowledge of every person, and a demonstration of his righteous mercy.

In general, what we begin to see in a stumbling, imperfect, and often culturally primitive way becomes clear in Jesus. He sees our sin. He takes our sin. He is killed for our sin. He gives us his righteousness as a gift. The “bitter water” of the cross is the premise of the “Good News” of the Gospel. The humiliation of a possibly innocent woman prefigures the humiliation of an innocent savior. Like so many of the outrageous OT passages, when we get to the cross, things become clear. Painfully so.

We don’t need to apologize for such passages or to attempt to make them what they are not. They are the rough, beginning steps of the record of God making his Holiness and mercy known to the world through his people, but this is a very primative and tentative step in that revelation. When we come to Jesus, and take him back with us to Numbers 5, we can be grateful that the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Truly, this chapter is a “dark shadow” of the better things to come.

It’s about 8pm dark outside and the doppler radar shows a bunch of ‘red’ moving through. One week and a day ago we were pounded bad enough that in places there are ‘furrows’ ploughed through woods, 18+” trees totally uprooted.

It’s enough to make you look forward to a Minnesota winter.

Is Bibliolotry (sp?) what happens when you separate your doctrine of Scripture from your doctrine of Jesus? Just curious.

I was reading Capon’s Parable Trilogy over breakfast, incredible. The book is awesome too.

wow…what’s goin’ on in here? disgruntled moderator? clever hacking troll?

speaking of which…Flame Warriors is a pretty funny site (HT to Team Redd and Upside Down Asylum).

It’s been utterly impossible for me to keep up with the conversation in here the past two days. I’m finishing up my final research paper today…then a nice long break from school, until I decide to pursue some other degree that I won’t actually use in a professional job.

Annie Judson, it should be working now.

-Kurt

Note: Don’t try to post before your eyes open up enough to read.

boarsheadtavern.com/pda isn’t updating for me.

Michael writes:

I’ve probably got 20 commentaries on Rev on the shelves. None of them take the early date. None are by dispys. Most are by folks considered “critical.” I took two classes at SBTS on Rev. Both argued extensively for the late date. Neither were taught by dispys. I think the late date is held by 80% of NT scholars at least. For a good recent work, see Ben Witherington III. I don’t read dispys. I only see Calvinists/a/preterists taking the early date. (Wright might take it!

This is an extract from Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell.

The names are ordered alphabetically vice chronologically.

What I found striking was the dates of the scholars.

pax,
Dale

Dale,

I’ve probably got 20 commentaries on Rev on the shelves. None of them take the early date. None are by dispys. Most are by folks considered “critical.” I took two classes at SBTS on Rev. Both argued extensively for the late date. Neither were taught by dispys. I think the late date is held by 80% of NT scholars at least. For a good recent work, see Ben Witherington III. I don’t read dispys. I only see Calvinists/Postmills/preterists taking the early date. (Wright might take it!)

Hey Monk, I think I found a BHT Christmas gift for Noel…

HT to PDuggan

Ted writes: “With the closing of special revelation in A.D. 70….”
Michael asks:

Where do you come up with that?

Are you aware that at all major scholars date John’s writings in the 90’s? And Revelation as well?

Ted’s right: Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell is an excellent, scholarly work on the dating of the book of Revelation. It was Gentry’s PhD thesis.

And don’t forget—one’s eschatological position has a lot to do with the dating of Revelation. Yes, it’s the cart before the horse. But I think a good case can be made that with the rise in Dispensationalism came a shift from an early dating to a late dating.

pax,
Dale

I have a question about the doctrine of inerrancy. Please note: I’m asking this as someone who has embraced, defended, and taught the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. So this is an “insider’s” question/observation.

It appears to me that we Americans have taken our scientific precisionism and tried to force the Scriptures to meet that requirement. The Chicago Statement reads like it was written by a bunch of 20th century scientists.

Wouldn’t a more biblical position be to see what level of precision the Bible requires and make that the standard?

pax,
Dale

Ted, to say that Jesus “deceiving” people about demons is the obvious conclusion of my argument is a crock. Do you think Jesus’ main mission was to explain the ins and outs of mental illnesses and physical maladies? He just healed people by any means possible. Your problem is that you think the Bible is just a textbook for everything rather than what it really is. It’s not intended to explain everything in life. That’s where we get this crap like Biblical-based diet programs and the like. Jesus’ mission was to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Healing was part of his proclamation. Who cares if it’s by touching someone and healing their malady by the power of God or driving out a demon? The result is the same.

If there are demons, and there may be, I never said for sure there are not, then, as Josh implied, they do seem to reside in areas where people are more superstitious and generally less educated. I wonder why that is? Surely it doesn’t make much sense that an educated populace would by its very nature send demons packing to flee to the dark corners of the world.

I’m not a huge fan of Bultmann, and I think he goes way too far in his “demythologizing,” but what he was trying to do, as flawed as it was, was commendable. He was trying to bring the “kerygma”, the essence of the Gospel, to people steeped in modernity, and who could not grasp a world controlled by angels and demons or an outdated cosmology that included a three-tiered universe with a solid dome high above the flat earth. You don’t have to believe that to believe that Jesus did rise from the dead and is indeed the Christ. That’s what it’s all about, not the ins and outs of demonology.

There were indeed a couple of times in my life when I felt a strong, dreadful demonic presence. Was it really the demonic, or was it my mind and emotions playing tricks on me? I really, to this day, don’t know the answer to that. But, as Michael would say, that’s not the “cake.”

The credo position is admittedly based on a rejection of paedo.

No
No
No

How does one arrive at that position? Good grief, you think credo-baptists start with the foundational belief that paedobaptism is wrong, and then create an alternative? And because we think paedo is wrong, that is a strike against the credo belief? How about giving credos credit for studying the scriptures and coming to the conclusion that the scripture teaches credo-baptism, and then rejecting the alternative view.

Hey PWinn, remind me and I’ll bring our box of M:TG cards over next time we drop by to freeload. We can have a weenie-deck tournament or something. ;)

The cult of Asclepius- greek God of medicine- gives a good idea of the mindset of an ancient culture towards medical treatment. This cult was very common in Asia Minor.

On what basis are the vast majority of New Testament scholars wrong on the dating of the Johannine writings? What are they missing or where are they going awry?

Michael: I come up with that from Before Jerusalem Fell, by Kenneth Gentry, and Redating the New Testament, by Bishop A.T. Robinson. I’m aware that it’s a minority position. I’ve concluded that it may very well be right.

Michael: OBI has a rule against Magic: The Gathering cards? Too bad; I had been considering coming to Kentucky to work, but… Just kidding, of course. I’d throw away my extensive collection if it came to that. Haven’t played in a while anyway. {:)}

Also, keep talking to the inerrantist guy. Already he’s clarified enough to have more than half the people in the U.S. who call themselves inerrantists to disagree with him, and the more he talks, the smaller his list of inerrantist buddies will get! {:)}

Ted: >With the closing of special revelation in A.D. 70....

Where do you come up with that?

Are you aware that at all major scholars date John’s writings in the 90’s? And Revelation as well?

Ted: I never said that prescientific cultures couldn’t ever separate disease from demon possession. That would be a monumentally stupid thing to say, and I don’t think I’m quite there yet. I said that many things we understand as physical, mental or biological in origin, they would have explained with other explanations, such as the demonic.

The word the ESV translates as “epileptic,” refers to those whose seizures were credited to being under the control of the moon or moon deities. A little lexical work on the greek root will show the ESV is interpreting for the modern reader. The greco-roman world did not understand epilepsy as a medical condition. The KJV “lunatic” keeps the greek idea better.

Obviously, they understood injury related paralysis. And if you believe they understood all epilepsy, all mental illness, and all conditions like CP in medical terms, then I have no other case to make. I have no desire to change your mind that the Bible is inerrant.

Your explanation of Numbers 5 is fine with me. If the passage doesn’t trouble you, then I toast you.

If I have neglected to comment on a specific question, just call it to my attention.

I’ll stay with Paul’s statement about the Corinthians who were afraid of steaks:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth- as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”- 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Matthew 4:24:

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Sounds as if the Apostle Matthew knew the difference between “demon oppression” and natural illness, didn’t he? :)

Hey, Josh, another good point. I agree that demonic activity would be more prevalent in a pagan society that had not the light of the Gospel. The preaching of the Word of God drives the evil out. Probably one of the many reasons for the Great Commission, huh? :)

Josh: excellent point on baptism. I sometimes forget how the “baptismal inclusiveness” works only one way. Question: The LCMS will accept someone as a member if they were credo-baptized, right? I mean, it’s not like we can make the person go back to being a baby so we can Christen them properly. :) The credo position is admittedly based on a rejection of paedo. That is definitely a strike against it.

Tom: why on earth would Jesus want to deceive people into thinking that demons exist, when they don’t? That’s the obvious conclusion of your argument.

Michael: Okay, sorry I didn’t deal with your question on Numbers 5. I’ve cited a bunch of Scripture references over the last several days and nobody’s addressed those, so I know how you feel. Here’s my deal on the “supernaturalicity” of the Bible. God provided (or allowed) a lot of supernatural events while special revelation was being written down. These were all for a purpose, to show His power, to show the authority of the prophets, etc. All culminating in Jesus. While Jesus was on earth, demonic activity reached its peak as they tried to fight back against His ministry. With Christ’s passion, Satan is now bound, and his minions are unable to affect mankind as they once did. Believers cannot be possessed because they are now all indwelt with the Holy Spirit (formerly reserved for only a few), which prevents demonic interference. However, demons can affect non-believers, but this is still rare, as their power is greatly diminished.

I classify Numbers 5 and other passages like it as a manifestation of the authority granted by God to the Levitical priesthood. Same with the various people who got zotted for touching the Ark of the Covenant or for doing tabernacle worship wrong. With the closing of special revelation in A.D. 70, these things no longer take place. Not that miracles don’t still happen, of course they do. But it should not be expected that they will happen ordinarily, nor should it be expected that any particular group of Christians has a monopoly on them.

Speaking of Harry Potter, the White Horse Inn program this week is on that very subject. Available for free listening at their website, www.whitehorseinn.org.

A few disconnected observations in the subject at hand…

1) The existence of demons is a clear biblical teaching. They exist.

2) Most Western branches of Christianity either overly-downplay point 1), or go overboard on the errors pointed out in points 4) and 5). (this insight courtesy of point 6)

3) The behavior of those possessed by demons was clearly discernable to those surrounding them. (i.e. there was a clear difference between “sinners” and “the possessed” in the minds of those who interacted with them in the NT)

4) The Bible does NOT equate being tempted by the devil with being possessed by the devil – and it has a lot more to say about the former than the latter.

5) In a culture like ours where personal responsibility is a “third-rail”, I take most people’s discussions of “casting out demons”, “generational curses”, etc, with a grain – no, a 1 lb. pour container – of salt.

6) The best book of demonology ever published was The Screwtape Letters.