The People who Read the Bible

Have you ever wondered why two people reading or studying the Bible can come up with such different conclusions about the meaning, impact, implications, or application of the same text of scripture?  It happens all the time and in almost every discussion about the Bible.

 

One of the biggest reasons for this is related to how different people approach and read a text of scripture. We might call these approaches “lenses” through which each person reads the text. Whether you know it or not, you have lenses and so do I. The important thing is to identify the lenses you’re using and understand the lenses that the person you’re talking to is using. Once you get that down, you’ll likely find it easier to engage and understand the perspective of the other person.

In the world of biblical studies there is a huge “cast of characters,” each of whom has a passionate interest in approaching the text of scripture, but who may also bring a different set of priorities, objectives, lenses and tools with them with which they do their interpretive work. I’m providing this short list (you can add to it in the comments, or tweak mine if you want) so that when you’re in dialogue with someone who is looking at a text differently you can discern how they are coming to the text.   Continue at Ken Burchard

Presuppositional Apologetics: An Evaluation

Yesterday I spent some time describing the presuppositionalist school of apologetics. Today, I want to evaluate it. As you were probably able to tell from that post, I tipped my hand a bit and probably let on that I’m a fan. In fact, I believe that presuppositional apologetics is the best model among the various systems of apologetics, particularly because it is the school that most faithfully submits to the implications of Scriptural teaching. I believe this for several reasons.

Consistent with the Nature of Man and Salvation

First, presuppositionalism is the only school of apologetics that is consistent with what the Bible teaches about the nature of sinful man and the gift of salvation. All schools of apologetics will admit that their ultimate goal is not merely to win an argument or to show up a philosophical opponent. All Christian apologists defend the faith in order to honor God and to see people get saved. Yet it seems to me that other schools of apologetics—particularly evidentialism and classical apologetics—fail to bring their practice in line with what the Bible teaches about man’s depravity and God’s salvation.

Evidentialism treats man as if his problem is merely intellectual. It offers arguments and evidences for the likelihood of Christian claims and asks the unbeliever to render judgment. Classical apologists do the same thing, but they insert an extra step by arguing for theism in general before Christian theism in particular. However, both of these methods ignore the fact that the unbeliever’s problem is moral, not intellectual. All evidence will be interpreted in light of someone’s existing worldview. And the Bible tells us that the unbeliever is blind to the glory of Christ (2 Cor 4:4) and actively committed to suppressing whatever knowledge of God they do have (Rom 1:18) because they love their sin (John 3:20).    Continue at Mike Riccardi

When Presuppositions Lead Men Astray

This post is not to throw stones but to point out to all of us how dangerous our unexamined thoughts are. We see this in casual ways when we infer what wasn’t written or implied – such as when we read Bible passages that are very familiar. Another way is when we defend a position – in politics or religion, related to style of worship or doctrinal distinctives. What follows is an example of a blogger for whom I have much respect has written a post to make the point that we each should “draw the line” on what music is good and proper – ostensibly in worship.

This post is NOT a forum to debate whether “Christian rap” or “Christian hip-hop” is good; the reason for this post is to examine the subtle tendency we have to use faulty logic (making sweeping arguments without discriminating actual facts) and misapplication of Scripture (based on unexamined presuppositions).

In this post http://5ptsalt.com/2012/05/16/christian-rap-is-a-lost-cause/ the author condemns a form of music by saying it “uses the ways, lusts, pride, dress and manner of the world.” And he gives no example of “Christian rap” that fulfills this charge. Nor does he acknowledge that nearly every generation of Christians makes a similar charge at what’s new in music – as Spurgeon did with organs in churches. Handel used grand orchestras to portray his message of God’s glory and people today still love some of his music without loving his Lord. Was Handel as guilty as the un-named “Christian rappers”?  Continue at Manfred

Communicating the Claims of Easter

The focus of my last post was the public character of the resurrection that makes the gospel rather different from the sheer power of personal assertion or experience. Here are some suggestions for communicating this central Christian claim to others—and not only at Easter! 

Suggestions for Conversations
1. The gospel’s effects are deep and wide, so you can start anywhere in the argument. For example, in the philosophers’ forum in Athens, Paul began by telling his Epicurean and Stoic audience that they misunderstood who God is and how he relates to the world. God is neither irrelevant and aloof from the world (contra the Epicureans) nor part of the world (contra the Stoics). Though he doesn’t depend on the world, the world depends on him and God is concerned and involved with the world he has created, governs, and saves. It’s an argument for Christian theism, showing unbelievers how they cannot even live consistently with their own assumptions unless the Triune God known in Scripture is the source of all reality. You can also begin the conversation by sharing your own experience—the difference Christ has made in your life, as long as you realize that this isn’t the gospel itself. Or you can go straight to the resurrection and work more inductively, from the most particular claim to its broader implications.
2. On one hand, don’t assume that you and your conversation partner share the same assumptions. On the other hand, don’t assume that you don’t share any common ground. Especially to the extent that one has been shaped by the naturalistic presuppositions that dominate academic culture in our day, a claim like the resurrection will be ruled impossible at the start. Miracles do not happen because they cannot happen: that’s the a priori assumption of the deistic/atheistic worldview of today’s Epicureans. If you’re reasoning with modern “Stoics”—basically, a pantheistic worldview, the assumption will be that everything is divine and miraculous; so the idea of special divine interventions like the resurrection will seem just as foreign to New Agers as to New Atheists. Again, you can begin by exposing the irrationality and inconsistency of these worldviews and then discuss the resurrection within the context of a biblical worldview or begin with the resurrection claim. One strength of the latter approach is that the resurrection, as a historical event, disproves their worldview. Here is an event that actually happened, which their worldview cannot account for. Even if they do not accept the argument, much less trust in Christ, this can at least help to weaken their excuse that the biblical claim is nothing more than private assertion or experience, unaccountable to public debate. It can help to expose to our friend the fact that he or she is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”—that is, no longer rejecting the claim because of reason but because of the same irrational act of mere will that he or she had attributed to believers.  Continue at Michael Horton

IMAGE

Presuppositions And Inerrancy

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

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

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

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

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

IMAGE

RCT3: Christianity & Liberalism

The liberal conception of God differs even more fundamentally from the Christian view than in the different circle of ideas connected with the terminology of fatherhood. The truth is that liberalism has lost sight of the very center and core of the Christian teaching. In the Christian view of God as set forth in the Bible, there are many elements. But one attribute of God is absolutely fundamental in the Bible; one attribute is absolutely necessary in order to render intelligible all the rest. That attribute is the awful transcendence of God. From beginning to end the Bible is concerned to set forth the awful gulf that separates the creature from the Creator. It is true, indeed, that according to the Bible God is immanent in the world. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him. But he is immanent in the world not because He is identified with the world, but because He is the free Creator and Upholder of it. Between the creature and the Creator a great gulf is fixed. Read it all HERE

Image

Francis Schaeffer’s Works Online in MP3 Format

Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)^[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more Historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States. Schaeffer's wife, Edith (Seville) Schaeffer has become a prolific author in her own right. Schaeffer is also the father of author, filmmaker and painter Frank Schaeffer. 

 

Wikipedia

Francis Schaeffer MP3s

I’m a Complementarian, But… Women Can Be Deacons

I believe answering the question “What meaningful role can and should women play in congregational life?” is as important a practical and spiritual question we can consider. It’s a question that affects at least half (usually much more) of our congregations. It’s a question that touches directly upon gospel-ordered congregational life. It’s a question that potentially restricts or broadens Christian freedom for women in our churches. It’s a question that either employs or unemploys the gifts the Lord himself sovereignly grants to our sisters.

How we answer the question must be shaped and limited by the word of God. But we approach the word of God with assumptions, presuppositions, biases, historical understandings, and personal filters. None of us come to the word as empty slates; we have “tilts” that may or may not be known to us. That’s why humility, openness, and community become so important in discussions like these. We need others to help us see and learn. The way you all have commented and participated in this discussion has taught me much and modeled the kind of conversations Christian people ought to have about potentially contentious issues. Thank you.  Continue Reading>>>

Are You Angry with God?

In our secular society, it is considered therapeutic and acceptable for people to be angry at God. It is said that getting angry at God is part of the healing process when we feel hurt, and that forgiving God is a milestone on the road to recovery.

Any informed Christian understands the blasphemy of such thinking and statements, and yet, even believers struggle with the temptation to be angry at God.

Why do we struggle with anger at God?

People get angry at God because they feel that He owes them something that He did not deliver to them, or, that He allowed some bad thing to happen to them that they did not deserve.

In other words, they think they didn’t receive what they deserved, or, they received what they didn’t deserve.

Both of these lines of thinking presuppose that God has some obligation to them that He did not fulfill. Thus, the anger. Continue Reading>>>

PAUL'S PURPOSE AT ATHENS and The Problem Of "Common Ground"

Gospel Presuppositions

How a Christian Can Read Any Old Testament Passage

Those Stubborn Presuppositions…