Part One
You've heard that "Americans love a winner." Sounds good. Who wants to be a loser? Capital "L". Not me. I'm very competitive. But what is winning? That's important to figure out, and when it comes to God and church, most people are getting it wrong. Of course, the point of the Christian life, of church, isn't winning in the same sense that men think, but you might not know that by the way it is treated. I say "in the same sense" because we are running for a prize, but not in a way that we are trying to beat everyone to a finish line. You can't 'bear one another's burdens' and just get there first.
Winning in and with church also dovetails with a man's career. Striving for success and then succeeding seem to be definitional in manhood, especially in the United States. It might not be your paycheck, but it is the respect that you get because you've succeeded. The money might come with it and maybe fame.
I know that God will make the final evaluation of success. As I project myself into eternity, I know that whatever short term assessment is made by men, the bottom line is what God knows and judges and says. It is difficult to keep that in the forefront, but it is what all of us should do, who think they are in the work of the Lord.
In part one I introduced a kind of thought experiment to explain why churches get bigger or stay smaller, or never make it -- what those say about the qualifications of the man leading. I hope that most of the readers believe in the perspecuity of scripture. God's Word is plain. There isn't some special recipe for success that only certain men can know. We have what we need to be a success and to evaluate whether someone is succeeding.
I presented five explanations that I have heard many times for what is judged a lack of success in church work. I explained the thinking on those five, and then I began to criticize those, ending with the third. I'm going to continue with that, finishing up some thoughts about that one: the man is lacking in gifts. When someone says that a man is lacking in gifts, in my experience he means that he is not a dynamic communicator. He is not good at persuading people to do things. Neither might he be skilled at management. Perhaps he lacks confidence in himself, which manifests itself in regular self-doubt.
Of the five that I mentioned, "lacking in gifts" can be legitimate. Qualified, Godly men should observe the giftedness necessary to pastor, before laying hands on someone who says he wants to start or lead a church. It's true that some men cannot teach. Not everyone will be able to do that in a sufficiently competent manner. Some men are not meant to lead a church. That doesn't make them lesser men. Their gifts are in other places, and their gifts should be used in those ways.
However, very often I don't think this "lacking in gifts" evaluation is related to a biblical idea of gifts. The thought is that if a man doesn't see his church grow, he's deficient in some way in the way of giftedness for church leadership. Get big -- he's got what it takes or more of what it takes. Not get big -- he doesn't have what it takes or he has less of it. In fact, from my observation, most of the churches that get big, don't get there resulting from what the Bible describes as giftedness. Many of those churches are led by dynamic communicators. People may want to come and hear them. That doesn't mean they are even better preachers, because biblical communication is often different than what these men do.
Fourth, he doesn't know what he's doing. Everything someone needs to know in order to do God's work, to pastor, to plant a church, is in the Bible. So an accurate assessment of someone not knowing really means that he doesn't know the Bible or how to apply it. He also might lack in the discipline to put it into practice, which is perhaps nothing more than not loving God to the extent that he would become disciplined.
"Not knowing what he is doing" isn't "not knowing the Bible" unfortunately, but not knowing how to draw a crowd of people. What might be the case, perhaps what is occurring, is that he in fact does know how to draw a crowd, but he refuses to use those methods, because he sees them as wrong. He doesn't use bait and switch. He doesn't design his services like a variety show. Maybe he isn't good at comedy, so he won't attract the crowd that wants to come and yuck it up on Sunday. But I haven't noticed comedy as a qualification, or anything else like that.
Fifth, he's majoring on minors and minoring on majors.
Certain biblical teachings are unpopular. If a church practices them, the church won't get as big. Even one of them could effect the numbers.
The idea here is that "people getting saved" is more important than other teachings of the Bible, so in order to see people get saved, you leave out teachings in the Bible that are offensive to the lost. You might have to give up lesser doctrines for the major ones. If you want to keep growing and get bigger, you have to allow certain practices or use methods that will discourage people from interest in your church. It might seem like a bad thing to ignore certain biblical teachings, but you are really just prioritizing the more important doctrines, which in this system is good.
Not only is this not the model for church growth from the New Testament, but the Bible teaches against it. Nowhere does the Bible even teach us to relegate something God said to secondary status. A lot of the biggest churches do this though. They are strong in a few select doctrines and weak on all the others.
These five reasons, explaining why some men are not succeeding, are not the correct explanation for what is happening most of the time. Next time we'll talk about the problem and the solution.
More to Come.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
The Deceit and Tragedy of the Wrong Attribution of Success or a Wrong View of Success in Church Leadership, part one
When a man goes somewhere to evangelize and then to start a church, and it doesn't happen -- no church comes out of it -- was there something wrong with him? Does there have to be something wrong with him? He preaches the gospel. He sees some professions of faith. He follows-up on those professions. Few people stick. Very few are faithful to meet. The church never gets off the ground. Is this an indication that he doesn't have what it takes to do it?
Let's go a step further. Some other man does see a church go. The converts stick and the numbers grow to the extent that the church is even self-supporting, and the church never gets above a hundred. It stays between 40 and 80 for years. People come. Some go. The bucket empties about the same speed that it is filled, so it stays always in about the same place numbers-wise. Can you judge that man to be lacking? Is he to be respected less than someone who has more people meeting? Is the man who has 200 doing more right? And then the man with 500 even more? The man with a thousand, even more? And if it is 10,000, that man is even better, maybe the best?
Is the above true? Is the above how we decide the value of someone? Is this how God evaluates this?
A man goes to a community and he persists at preaching the gospel to everyone. No one listens. He goes to the next town over and tries it there. No one listens. Can we conclude that he's doing something wrong?
What People Say Is Happening With Little to No Results
Through my years, I have heard a number of evaluations of those who do not ever pastor a large church. One is that he is lacking in power. He is preaching, but it is "word only" preaching that is not accompanied with power. If he would do a serious self-evaluation, he would probably find hidden sin, and he should confess that in a very contrite, penitent way, shed tears over it. Then he should pray for power -- fall on his face and plead and spend time of earnestness and real hunger for the power of God on the work. If he were to do that without ceasing for enough time, no objective time limit, but going and going and going like that, as some point, he might break through and have that power.
The lifelessness in his church, i.e., lack of converts, baptisms, numerical growth, comes because he doesn't have the power of God. He needs to do what it takes, whatever it takes to get it. The reason he is either grounded or just creeping is because he is doing it in his own strength without the overcoming and overwhelming power that would make it happen. Many could testify of this power, and they have taken off and exploded because of power. If you plead for souls, God will give them to you.
Second, God isn't going to give a man numbers that won't be able to do something with those numbers. He should be thanking God that he hasn't seen much happen, because, if he did, he'd be even worse off. God will only give him what he can handle. He gives the big numbers to the men who know what to do with them.
Third, the man is lacking in gifts. The numbers will come equal to the gifts that he has. People aren't interested in what he has to give. People will be like ants around honey if he's got the honey. The lack of interest comes because he just doesn't have the gifts. He's not a gifted teacher or preacher. He won't get where the gifted preachers and teachers are, because he's just not got what they've got.
Fourth, he doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know how to close the back door. He turns away seekers, because he isn't seeker sensitive. He doesn't offer people what it is that will get them to come and then keep them coming. He doesn't have the skill set. He doesn't have that basic knowledge pool to pull it off. He might need to change his thinking entirely and think outside of the box, but where he's at, isn't getting it, because he hasn't got it figured out. Everything can be figured out.
Fifth, he's majoring on minors and minoring on majors. He turns people off with all the scruples and standards. People are not comfortable. He has shrunk the tent with non-essentials. There must be a spirit of acceptance and toleration. What isn't essential should be ejected. Simplify the vision and mission statement. Those might be your own personal convictions, but don't lay those on everyone else.
Answering What People Say
This is going to take at least two steps, perhaps two or three posts. The first step is answering the above mentioned things said. They are things I've heard, perhaps you've heard. They should be evaluated of themselves. The second step is to talk about how men are evaluated, how their deeds are evaluated, and understanding what success is, according to God. I don't think it will likely change much. Men will still be judged wrongly, and the wrong people will be exalted on earth. This reminds me of what God told Baruch in Jeremiah 45:5: "seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not." That's a part of the solution for anyone feeling sorry for himself in this matter. But let's move to answering the above.
One is that he is lacking in power. There are many different ideas, true and false, about power, and we're talking about power from God. This is mystical power that someone possesses to use in one sense like the two witnesses in Revelation, who can breath out fire to destroy enemies. Just turn your flame thrower on someone. If this was available, that is, some ability to make others crumple before you and give you the results you desire, then why isn't it being used everywhere? The ones that have it should keep open the faucet and let it flow until all the work on earth is finished. They don't, because they really don't have anything special in the way of power. They just say they do. The say they do like Charismatics say they do.
There is no biblical basis for this power. It is invented out of extra-scriptural stories and then backed by eisegesis from a verse and a phrase. There are no biblical examples of what it is that men are saying that either happens or is not happening in the way of power. The stories provide the same type of evidence as those told by Charismatics. They are no authority to be trusted. I'm saying that this kind of power is not taught in the Bible. Jesus Himself didn't use it. If Paul had it, he should have turned on that faucet in Athens.
A corollary to this is faithlessness, faith being the persuasion that this mystical experience will occur. If you don't believe it will, because you don't see it in scripture, you are still lacking in faith and limiting God by it. The men I have seen talk about this power the most are also men who use various sorts of human means to produce their results. I don't believe this lack of power is ever the issue in whether someone is successful in Christian leadership or not.
Second, God isn't going to give a man numbers that won't be able to do something with those numbers. This point is nowhere in the Bible. I've heard men say that early in their ministries, when they weren't seeing much happen, it was because they weren't ready yet to handle those results that they would have in the future. God could have been saving people then, but He knew that He shouldn't start saving great numbers of people until there was a man who could take care of them properly. Do you think that God could have overcome the man with the necessary abilities to do something with numbers, and then give him numbers? No, the man becomes fit for numbers and then God gives them to him. If you aren't going to become fit for amazing growth, then God won't give it to you. How do you become fit for it? Shouldn't we be giving those special abilities to all men, so that they could all partake? This isn't in the Bible, and it doesn't make any sense, like things often don't when they are unscriptural.
Third, the man is lacking in gifts. By lacking in gifts, we mean missing out on abilities to hold people's interest and make them want to be with you. This is one of these that I think is possible, because the Spirit does divide severally as He will. Someone might not get the giftedness necessary to pastor. That could be the case. However, where it goes wrong is in the way this is evaluated in this particular explanation. If your church stays small, it relates to gifts. Argument over. If it gets big, well, those were gifts too. The men, who see their church get much bigger than others, are special men. You can chalk it up to their abilities.
More to Come
Let's go a step further. Some other man does see a church go. The converts stick and the numbers grow to the extent that the church is even self-supporting, and the church never gets above a hundred. It stays between 40 and 80 for years. People come. Some go. The bucket empties about the same speed that it is filled, so it stays always in about the same place numbers-wise. Can you judge that man to be lacking? Is he to be respected less than someone who has more people meeting? Is the man who has 200 doing more right? And then the man with 500 even more? The man with a thousand, even more? And if it is 10,000, that man is even better, maybe the best?
Is the above true? Is the above how we decide the value of someone? Is this how God evaluates this?
A man goes to a community and he persists at preaching the gospel to everyone. No one listens. He goes to the next town over and tries it there. No one listens. Can we conclude that he's doing something wrong?
What People Say Is Happening With Little to No Results
Through my years, I have heard a number of evaluations of those who do not ever pastor a large church. One is that he is lacking in power. He is preaching, but it is "word only" preaching that is not accompanied with power. If he would do a serious self-evaluation, he would probably find hidden sin, and he should confess that in a very contrite, penitent way, shed tears over it. Then he should pray for power -- fall on his face and plead and spend time of earnestness and real hunger for the power of God on the work. If he were to do that without ceasing for enough time, no objective time limit, but going and going and going like that, as some point, he might break through and have that power.
The lifelessness in his church, i.e., lack of converts, baptisms, numerical growth, comes because he doesn't have the power of God. He needs to do what it takes, whatever it takes to get it. The reason he is either grounded or just creeping is because he is doing it in his own strength without the overcoming and overwhelming power that would make it happen. Many could testify of this power, and they have taken off and exploded because of power. If you plead for souls, God will give them to you.
Second, God isn't going to give a man numbers that won't be able to do something with those numbers. He should be thanking God that he hasn't seen much happen, because, if he did, he'd be even worse off. God will only give him what he can handle. He gives the big numbers to the men who know what to do with them.
Third, the man is lacking in gifts. The numbers will come equal to the gifts that he has. People aren't interested in what he has to give. People will be like ants around honey if he's got the honey. The lack of interest comes because he just doesn't have the gifts. He's not a gifted teacher or preacher. He won't get where the gifted preachers and teachers are, because he's just not got what they've got.
Fourth, he doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know how to close the back door. He turns away seekers, because he isn't seeker sensitive. He doesn't offer people what it is that will get them to come and then keep them coming. He doesn't have the skill set. He doesn't have that basic knowledge pool to pull it off. He might need to change his thinking entirely and think outside of the box, but where he's at, isn't getting it, because he hasn't got it figured out. Everything can be figured out.
Fifth, he's majoring on minors and minoring on majors. He turns people off with all the scruples and standards. People are not comfortable. He has shrunk the tent with non-essentials. There must be a spirit of acceptance and toleration. What isn't essential should be ejected. Simplify the vision and mission statement. Those might be your own personal convictions, but don't lay those on everyone else.
Answering What People Say
This is going to take at least two steps, perhaps two or three posts. The first step is answering the above mentioned things said. They are things I've heard, perhaps you've heard. They should be evaluated of themselves. The second step is to talk about how men are evaluated, how their deeds are evaluated, and understanding what success is, according to God. I don't think it will likely change much. Men will still be judged wrongly, and the wrong people will be exalted on earth. This reminds me of what God told Baruch in Jeremiah 45:5: "seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not." That's a part of the solution for anyone feeling sorry for himself in this matter. But let's move to answering the above.
One is that he is lacking in power. There are many different ideas, true and false, about power, and we're talking about power from God. This is mystical power that someone possesses to use in one sense like the two witnesses in Revelation, who can breath out fire to destroy enemies. Just turn your flame thrower on someone. If this was available, that is, some ability to make others crumple before you and give you the results you desire, then why isn't it being used everywhere? The ones that have it should keep open the faucet and let it flow until all the work on earth is finished. They don't, because they really don't have anything special in the way of power. They just say they do. The say they do like Charismatics say they do.
There is no biblical basis for this power. It is invented out of extra-scriptural stories and then backed by eisegesis from a verse and a phrase. There are no biblical examples of what it is that men are saying that either happens or is not happening in the way of power. The stories provide the same type of evidence as those told by Charismatics. They are no authority to be trusted. I'm saying that this kind of power is not taught in the Bible. Jesus Himself didn't use it. If Paul had it, he should have turned on that faucet in Athens.
A corollary to this is faithlessness, faith being the persuasion that this mystical experience will occur. If you don't believe it will, because you don't see it in scripture, you are still lacking in faith and limiting God by it. The men I have seen talk about this power the most are also men who use various sorts of human means to produce their results. I don't believe this lack of power is ever the issue in whether someone is successful in Christian leadership or not.
Second, God isn't going to give a man numbers that won't be able to do something with those numbers. This point is nowhere in the Bible. I've heard men say that early in their ministries, when they weren't seeing much happen, it was because they weren't ready yet to handle those results that they would have in the future. God could have been saving people then, but He knew that He shouldn't start saving great numbers of people until there was a man who could take care of them properly. Do you think that God could have overcome the man with the necessary abilities to do something with numbers, and then give him numbers? No, the man becomes fit for numbers and then God gives them to him. If you aren't going to become fit for amazing growth, then God won't give it to you. How do you become fit for it? Shouldn't we be giving those special abilities to all men, so that they could all partake? This isn't in the Bible, and it doesn't make any sense, like things often don't when they are unscriptural.
Third, the man is lacking in gifts. By lacking in gifts, we mean missing out on abilities to hold people's interest and make them want to be with you. This is one of these that I think is possible, because the Spirit does divide severally as He will. Someone might not get the giftedness necessary to pastor. That could be the case. However, where it goes wrong is in the way this is evaluated in this particular explanation. If your church stays small, it relates to gifts. Argument over. If it gets big, well, those were gifts too. The men, who see their church get much bigger than others, are special men. You can chalk it up to their abilities.
More to Come
Friday, January 17, 2014
Things for Tourists to do in San Francisco
I wrote (and somehat adjusted) the following for some friends that were visiting San Francisco recently. I believe it would be of use to you if you are going to play the tourist, and perhaps even if you live in the area.
1.) Enjoy each other's company!
2.) Bring warm clothes--SF is not southern California. Also, wear comfortable walking shoes. You can pretty much walk and take the bus everywhere you need to go, 24 hours a day. Indeed, a car can be a pain to park. With comfortable shoes, warm clothes, a backpack, and a wallet, you are pretty much all set.
3.) Visit Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante on the Lord's Day in the morning, and stay for the evening service; get lots and lots of tracts and give them to everyone. Also, think about, as you walk by block after block of people in SF, that it is almost certain that no Baptist has ever knocked on their door in your entire lifetime, and then some, and ask if the Lord would have you be involved in church planting in SF (800,000), Oakland (400,000, zero IB churches), Berkeley (130,000, zero IB churches), Richmond (100,000+, 0 IB churches), etc. http://www.pillarandground.org/home/
Call the church if you need a ride from public transit. You can get on the BART subway downtown and ride to the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station, and they will be glad to pick you up there. Take a lot of tracts and go through the entire train preaching the gospel to everybody! The Lord will very likely give you both someone to talk to. Last time we were there someone came with us to church who we met on the train!
http://www.bart.gov/
You can also easily take BART from the airport to wherever you are going to stay; On Sunday, there will be a place where you will switch trains on the way to Bethel Baptist from SF.
4.) Visit the crooked street (part of Lombard Street); search for "crooked street SF" in Google. You can walk from there through the Italian district; perhaps pick up a really good and not super expensive fried chicken at:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/il-pollaio-san-francisco?nb=1
and then either walk through China Town to downtown or walk to Fisherman's Wharf and see the tourist things. (Don't do the http://www.aquariumofthebay.org/ ; I've been told it's a tourist trap.)
5.) For some beautiful views and a really nice trip, bike from Fisherman's Wharf across the Golden Gate Bridge, and take the ferry back. Rent a bike here:
http://www.blazingsaddles.com/
coupon for discount on this:
http://www.retailmenot.com/view/blazingsaddles.com
You can either stop for lunch in Sausalito or bag a lunch and eat it somewhere there is a beautiful view.
By the way, you can take the MUNI (the bus) everywhere, and you can even put bikes on the bus.
When you get to the Golden Gate Bridge, Fort Point (right under the bridge) is very interesting. Across the bay in Sausalito, you can bike to a redwood grove or even to Muir woods, but that is a bit more challenging, and probably would be a different day than you would use to bike to the ferry. SF is VERY bike friendly; you can bike anywhere. However, you would do well to shell out $10-15 and buy a bike light in case you end up out after dark.. Also, wear a helmet, at least if you have something in your head worth protecting.
6.) For great seafood, including fresh crab, go here:
http://www.sabellalatorre.com/ordereze/default.aspx
7.) If you think Chinese food is what you get in Mukwonago, WI, you will be amazed at what you have been missing if you get the amazing food here:
http://rnglounge.com/
The Salt and Pepper crab is amazing, and so are their other dishes. However, the place is a bit pricy. I don't consider take-out, fast-food style Chinese food to really be Chinese food, and if you go to R & G, perhaps you'll see why.
8.) For more cultural stuff instead of outdoors things, visit some of the SF museums; they are very nice. You can find them with a Google search. Golden Gate park also has museums, outdoor stuff, paddleboats, bison, a Japanese Tea Garden, and many other pleasant things. The Rose Garden is beautiful, but maybe less so in January.
9.) Go to Coit Tower:
http://sfrecpark.org/destination/telegraph-hill-pioneer-park/coit-tower/
You can walk from the Marina district to Coit Tower and all over the city, really.
10.) Visit Alcatraz:
http://www.nps.gov/alca/index.htm
11.) Explore downtown SF; stay on the North side of Market Street for a better area.
12.) Visit the Presidio:
http://www.nps.gov/prsf/index.htm
(You can do this while also hittng some of the other things nearby.)
13.) Muir woods is really beautiful, and if you have never seen redwoods--the tallest trees in the world--it's worth it.
14.) Buy ice cream at Ghiradelli Square, and learn some history while at it:
http://www.ghirardellisq.com/
15.) Take the cable car somewhere; tourists are supposed to. (People who live in SF just take the bus.) Try to avoid standing in line forever to do it, though. The downtown end of the line usually has a horrible line, which makes it a bad place to waste time, but a great place to street preach to a large captive audience.
16.) SF is known for its sodomites, but the only sodomite district is the Castro. There isn't much to see there, so there's no point going to that part.
I have never done one of the bus tours where you get on and get off wherever; it's worth thinking about, since you don't know your way around, although I can't personally recommend them one way or the other.
17.) We have a few pictures of SF and the area on our personal blog here:
http://agapekaiphilia.blogspot.com/2012/11/california-trip-jan-2012.html
and here:
http://agapekaiphilia.blogspot.com/2014/01/vacations-2013.html
There isn't that much information, though; perhaps just a whetted appetite from a few pictures.
18.) Don't take a one day trip to Yosemite and back. Yosemite is an amazing place, but it is too far away to go in one day and back. It would be better just to take a trip there for itself some other time.
19.) If you have a spirit of adventure, try sushi somewhere. You are by the ocean, not in the middle of the country, so there is great sea food everywhere. There are also plenty of amazing restaurants in the Italian section near China town.
20.) You don't need to go out to eat every meal; there is plenty at grocery stores around the area. Be prepared also in whatever you buy for the 10% sales tax, and for the fact that they won't give you a free bag in the grocery store. SF is an expensive place to live, and there isn't much that can be done about that, other than seeing a great revival and making the place a conservative Republical stronghold instead of a bastion of liberalism and high taxes.
By the way, I didn't put these things necessarily in order that I would recommend doing them in; I put down what I thought of. Do whatever appeals to you; probably with each other's company, anything will be wonderful, even staying inside with the power out because there was an earthquake. :-)
TDR
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Cleverness
Every December I plan the calendar for the next year and we have a calendar Sunday the first Sunday of the year. After I get our church calendar set, which includes the school calendar, I start looking at my own calendar, my family calendar. I have a son in Oklahoma, a potential wedding of a church member elsewhere, an east coast orchestra tour for a middle daughter, a preaching date at a church anniversary, all of those types of things. I try to get a family vacation. I think it's good for the family. We are at a stage where it is difficult to fit that in. Last year we didn't. There were too many things.
There is a place where we go and have gone many times. I wanted to switch it up a little this year, so we'll probably go someplace else, and part of my planning is where we'll go to church, usually on a Wednesday night. The place I was looking is a major metropolitan area, and I was looking at various websites of churches. I couldn't find anywhere to go. I might have found someplace to go if so many churches were not so clever.
I'm telling you that it is impossible to find a church that is just a church. I am happy that you can look for churches via websites. It makes things much easier on that front. Before it would have been yellow pages. You would get to the area, get the phone book and start a half hour to hour search in the yellow pages, making phone calls and using the map in the back of the phone book to figure out how long it would take. Sometimes you arrive and the church changed locations. Some churches would have gargantuan half page ads, some colored. If they were big ads, that wouldn't mean you wanted to go there. I've been to half paged ads in someone's living room. But if they were small, you might wonder if they cared. It was tough. Pre-internet, I remember driving up to a church and you wondered if it was still open. You get out, start looking in the windows. I was more than once just ten minutes early and the first person to arrive. Your goal for the night was to encourage the pastor. One man asked me to preach right on the spot, and I declined, because it's not a precedent I liked setting for him.
Alright, I want to get to my point. Almost everyone thinks they have to be clever. It is about impossible to find a regular church. Everyone wants people to think something about them. The things they emphasize are what they think people want. It actually makes me sick. Please don't think I'm saying a "dead church." Please. I'm talking about church that just does what the Bible says without all the bells and whistles. I'm sick of the bells and whistles. Come on. Stop. You get to these websites and it's like entering the wonderful world of Disney -- some type of award winning photography with emotional scenes caught in action.
Where can I start on this? The percentage seems to be about 50% clever, 40% really bad, and 10% awful. Let me get the last two out of the way first. The really bad are those who don't believe like we do in too many different ways. The awful are those who are very close to us in beliefs, if we laid the doctrinal statements out, but they are just awful. It doesn't look like they know what they're doing. It looks like a few people who have been there for years, who have taken ownership, and almost no one else. Very little is happening. There seems to be little to no accountability. I really am tempted to choose one of these places over clever. If the pastor preached a good sermon, I would take this over those other ones.
There is very little normal anymore. There is very little sensible. It is very difficult to find a place that is just rock solid. They respect God with their music, not attempting to have grammy production. Instead, there's a sermon series with the very clever title page with the catchy, hyper-practical label. You're entering an adventure in this new series. Every class has a catchy name. Everyone looks to be having a great time. Every service is a production.
When you see the clever, you know they're clever. You've got to be clever to grow. What if the church just had the basic marks of a good church that come from the Bible? What if it just had expository preaching? What if the people prayed, they sang hymns, they evangelized their community? That's not going to be enough. You need to have that mod picture of the pastor with the designer glasses, shaved head, or soul patch. Every family is smiling. They're all casually dressed. Nothing is hard. Everyone is comfortable and successful.
I understand that these churches, the clever churches, their leaders, know that this all works. Clever works and begets more cleverness. When clever works, others emulate. You know why their churches grow. They're clever. You've got be clever to grow. That's how it happens. You need someone clever. Just explaining what you're about, and showing it from the Bible -- that's not enough any more. You've got to convince someone that you're the church equivalent of a blockbuster movie.
The clever church says it's God, but you really know that it's the cleverness.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Is the Canon Really The Most Major Issue in Dealing with Roman Catholics?
Somebody tweeted to folks like myself that we needed to hear James White's interview with Michael Kruger about the canon of scripture on his internet Dividing Line program. I am interested in canon issues. It's an interesting subject. People who care about the Bible will think about it. I want to read a few of Kruger's books on the canon.
So I listened to a big chunk of the program. It started with twenty minutes from a Roman Catholic radio call-in program in which the canon subject came up from a caller. Before White started into his interview with Kruger, he said, "This (the canon) is the key apologetic issue when dealing with Roman Catholicism." The canon question is a subject debated in the realms of scholarship. How many people are those?
Don't get me wrong. I think it's important to understand what you believe on the canon. I think you should have that nailed down. Pastors should have an explanation. I do. I've written on it myself. I wrote the chapter on the canon in Thou Shalt Keep Them. However, is this the essential point requiring resolution for Roman Catholics?
I evangelize several people a week. I don't believe that I would be exaggerating to say that I have had at least 2,500 separate conversations with Roman Catholics in the last 25 or so years. I believe the number is low, that I'm being very conservative, because that would be about 100 a year, and it could be double or triple or even ten times that. Some days I have five or more separate conversations with Catholics in one day. I don't keep track. I'm not saying 2,500 Roman Catholics, but 2,500 conversations. It's hard to judge the number, but this is a very Roman Catholic area, especially because of the Hispanics and Filipinos. Then there are the European Catholics. In the towns or cities here, there are one or more Catholic churches, and I can visualize right where ours are in my mind. I see St Patrick in Rodeo, St Joseph in Pinole, and St Calistus in El Sobrante, St Paul in San Pablo, St Mark in Richmond, etc. St Joseph's in Pinole is packed every week. We have Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Islamics, as well, and more, but it isn't unusual to go door-to-door and have Catholic, Catholic, Catholic, Catholic, Catholic, right in a row.
Out of all the Roman Catholics who I have ever talked to, I got very few substantive conversations. The most thorough dealing I ever had was in a huge debate by private email I got into with the late Joseph Sobran, one time editor of National Review. I wrote to correct Sobran, and I kept writing with him because I wanted to evangelize him. I had written him in answer to one of his columns. It dealt with Catholicism and I thought he got the history wrong, so I emailed him. He emailed me back and we did that for several weeks. At one time, I bundled those emails together into a booklet of a few dozen pages, and they were available.
Now get this. In all the dealings I have had with Roman Catholics, I have never had one talk to me about the canon. Not one. The smartest and best informed Roman Catholics I have ever talked to have never brought it up. I'm not doubting that White has discussions with Catholic apologists about the canon, but Roman Catholics, including Sobran, never bring it up. That's not even a concern for them.
Is it really helpful to hear the canon is the major and key issue for Roman Catholics, and it isn't? I understand that White is saying that he's referring to their apologists, but that's not who you'll talk to out there. So you'll be all loaded for bear on the canon issue, begin to talk to a Roman Catholic and never hear it. I don't think you need to bring it up. You shouldn't bring it up. The Roman Catholics, who are even prepared to argue about anything, don't mention it.
White says that pastors and educators and leaders need the books on the canon, intimating that this is preparation for dealing with Roman Catholics, that they'll really need this. Believe me. You won't need that in talking to Roman Catholics. Then that has me wondering? What is the point of James White debating these Roman Catholic apologists? This is a very normal debate for James White, to debate Catholic scholars. They go round and round, really never coming to any kind of conclusion. When someone argues with a Roman Catholic scholar does it sound anything like what an evangelism opportunity with a Roman Catholic sounds like? No. Not at all. You need to know that.
But do I really know? I can't say I know, but I'm pretty sure that James White doesn't do much in the way of going out evangelizing every week. For him to say that "canon" is the key, the chief issue, indicates ignorance on his part. No Roman Catholic I've every talked to will bring it up.
OK, so what is the problem for Roman Catholics? First, Roman Catholics don't believe they can have forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. They don't believe Jesus has done enough for them to be saved. Roman Catholics add works to grace. They don't have a Jesus who can save them throughout all eternity.
Do Roman Catholics believe the Bible? They don't. However, if you ask a Roman Catholic the following question -- If you took the Bible and then you took Roman Catholicism, and the two contradicted each other, would you believe the Bible or Roman Catholicism? -- what answer do you think you get? I've talked to so many, that at this point, it's scientific. More than 90 % say "the Bible." Once you explain the Bible to a Roman Catholic, then you get the problem that most people have who don't get saved. Pride. Worldliness. Materialism. Roman Catholicism is a religion that doesn't require your whole life -- you can get by with some ritual and you'll be set (sort of). Catholics like that. They reject biblical Christianity, the true Jesus, for themselves. Their selves is the problem, like it is with so many people.
Family is an issue to Catholics. Roman Catholicism is a family religion. It's not really an apologetic type of religion, because it doesn't come from the Bible. Catholics don't want to cause waves in the family. So even if the Bible is true, they won't want to disappoint mama in so many cases.
James White will probably have some answer to explain why he says the canon is most important. It isn't to rank and file Catholics and even the more knowledgeable ones. He's wrong on that, and it isn't the best thing to tell people that the canon is the best Catholic argument. You won't hear it out there. I've never heard it from a Catholic.
Friday, January 10, 2014
How Long Were the Original Manuscripts Around? Considerations on the NT Autographa and Early NT Apographa from Scripture and Patristic Writers, part 5
An explicit reference to the continued existence of an autograph is found in fragments from the writings of Peter, bishop of Alexandria from A. D. 300-311:[i]
But after His public ministry He did not eat of the lamb, but Himself suffered as the true Lamb in the Paschal feast, as John, the divine and evangelist, teaches us in the Gospel written by him, where he thus speaks: “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.” And after a few things more. “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the third hour,” as the correct books render it, and the copy itself that was written by the hand of the evangelist, which, by the divine grace, has been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.[ii]
Another slightly different version of this fragment from Peter renders the section particularly of note as:
Now it was the preparation, about the third hour, as the accurate books have it, and the autograph copy itself of the Evangelist John, which up to this day has by divine grace been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.[iii]
Peter testifies that the original MSS of the gospel of John, the “copy itself that was written by the hand of the evangelist,” was still extant and available in the church at Ephesus to “the faithful,” and was used for textual-critical purposes, such as the “third” hour variant here referenced.
Peter’s reference to the “third” hour is a problem, since hekte, not trite, is undoubtedly the correct reading. “Sixth” is not only the reading of the preserved Textus Receptus, but of the Nestle-Aland text as well; textual critics of all persuasions affirm the evidence for this reading is overwhelming.[iv] Several solutions are possible. First, Peter could simply be wrong about the reading of the autograph at Ephesus. This, however, would undermine his credibility concerning the continued presence of the original. Second, a copy with the incorrect reading replaced the genuine autograph at Ephesus, and Peter accepted the substitute copy as the autograph. This would change the patristic testimony in this passage from an affirmation of textual stability and continuity to one that suggested widespread textual corruption. Third, the patristic fragment itself could contain the error—perhaps the bishop of Alexandria originally wrote six, and the reading three is a product of an erroneous scribal transcription. The practice of substituting the similar Greek numeral letters gamma and episemon for the words three and six, and the consequent ease of a copyist mistake,[v] is used to explain the interchange of the numbers in NT MSS—why could not such a substitution have occurred in the very poorly attested fragments of Peter of Alexandria? Peter’s actual work is not extant—its modern reproduction depends upon quotations in later writings.[vi] The reading three in the current text of Peter could easily be corrupt; a copyist could have substituted it in for an original numeral letter six accidentally, or, perhaps influenced by Mark 15:25 or NT MSS that read three in John 19:14, deliberately altered his copy of the text of the Alexandrian bishop. If such a numerical substitution in the patristic text took place, its testimony to the longevity of the autograph at Ephesus is essentially undiminished. The witness of Peter of Alexandria to a still extant autograph in the early fourth century, although vitiated by the uncertain origin and significance of the reading three, is still remarkable.
Augustine of Hippo, in his Reply to Faustus the Manichean, c. A. D. 400,[vii] seems to indicate the continued existence of the NT autographa even in his day:
Augustin replied: As I said a little ago, when these men are beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny their genuineness. But if this answer is admitted, or allowed to have any weight, it will be useless to quote any book or any passage against your errors. It is one thing to reject the books themselves, and to profess no regard for their authority, as the Pagans reject our Scriptures, and the Jews the New Testament, and as we reject any books peculiar to your sect, or any other heretical sect, and also the apocryphal books, which are so called, not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence, have only some obscure presumption to rest upon; and it is another thing to say, This holy man wrote only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are his, and some are not. And then, when you are asked for a proof, instead of referring to more correct or more ancient manuscripts, or to a greater number, or to the original text, your reply is, This verse is his, because it makes for me; and this is not his, because it is against me. . . . Accordingly, should there be a question about the text of some passage, as there are a few passages with various readings well known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the manuscripts of the country where the religion was first taught; and if these still varied, we should take the text of the greater number, or of the more ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we should consult the original text. This is the method employed by those who, in any question about the Scriptures, do not lose sight of the regard due to their authority, and inquire with the view of gaining information, not of raising disputes.[viii]
Augustine states that the ultimate ability in a textual dispute to “consult the original text” remains an option. Had a statement such as this occurred in a writer two or three centuries earlier, one would naturally conclude that he referred to the MSS originally penned under inspiration; in light of the date of his testimony, it might be supposed that he referred only to the original language of the NT documents, rather than the common Latin Bible. However, the context militates against this possibility. Augustine is defending the legitimacy or spurious nature of textual readings, not translational accuracy. Furthermore, the original language would naturally be consulted in matters of Biblical interpretation long before one went through the much greater difficulty of acquiring and comparing “more correct or more ancient manuscripts” or “a greater number,” but here reference to the original is only mentioned “if any uncertainty remained” after first pursuing these other options. Such a reference to the original is the ultimate and decisive answer to the Manichean argument that “This holy man wrote only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are his, and some are not.” If the “original” referred only to the original language, a resort to further more correct, ancient, or numerous manuscripts could be required, only now in Greek instead of in Latin. The context makes it clear that Augustine makes the stunning assertion that, around A. D. 400, the original copies of the New Testament were still extant and available for consultation in the churches founded by the apostles.[ix]
God promised to perfectly preserve Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35; etc.). Scripture has therefore been perfectly preserved, the Omnipotent’s testimony superceding all requirements of historical testimony. Since the logic of preservation requires that the Textus Receptus is the preserved text,[x] the autographs represented a TR text, and the copies made from it were TR MSS. However, patristic testimony suggests that the original MSS, not to mention faithful copies made directly from them, were extant for centuries. Since even anti-Byzantine critics admit that the traditional NT text began by the fourth century its rise to unquestioned dominance, evidence that the autographa or copies made directly from it likely existed into that century eliminates the gap between the inspiration of the TR and the period of its unquestioned ascendancy.
[i] Pg. 831-2, “Petrus I,” A Dictionary of Christian Biography.
[ii] AN:V:I:52950.
[iv] “The manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly in support of eºkth (P66 a * B E H I K M S U W Y G Q L P ¦1 ¦13 all minuscules [except four, with one with tri÷th in the margin] Old Latin vg syrp, h, pal copsa, bo arm eth geo pers al),” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Metzger, Note on John 19:14. Note also the commentaries of Alford, Barnes, Clark, Gill, Henry, and Robertson on John 19:14 and Mark 15:25. The CT does alter the TR w‚ra de« w‚sei« eºkth to w‚ra hjvn wJß eºkth, but neither text inserts tri÷th.
[v] The sources mentioned in the previous footnote discuss this practice. Irenaeus, evaluating the 666/616 variant in Revelation 13:18, specifically mentions that “numbers also are expressed by letters” by “copyists,” which, he states, can easily lead to numerical confusion (Against Heresies, book 5, AN:XXX:1:7331).
[vi] AN:Footnotes:15:53032; AN:Footnotes:31:53048. Also note the Translator’s Introductory Notice to Peter of Alexandria, AN:52703-52706.
[vii] NPN-1:Intro:15615.
[viii] NPN-1:XI:2:15785.
[ix] He tells his Manichean opponent Faustus that “if he produces his own manuscripts of the apostolic writings, he must also obtain for them the authority of the churches founded by the apostles themselves, by showing that they have been preserved and transmitted with their sanction” (NPN-1:XII:4:15962). These churches would have the ultimately authoritative manuscripts. However, Jerome’s letter to Pope Damascus in A. D. 383 gives no indication that the NT autographs had survived; it appears to presuppose their loss (Prefaces to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament: The Four Gospels, NPN-2:The Four Gospels:41486ff.). While authoritative MSS with very short lineal derivation from the autographs were very likely extant and available, unless MSS such as these satisfy Augustine’s assertions, he is probably incorrect if he affirms the continued existence of the autographs themselves in his day.
[x] This essay is not the place to prove this presupposition. See Thou Shalt Keep Them, ed. Kent Brandenburg, El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003, for a book-length treatment.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Poem by David Warner
Here is a poem just recently written by David Warner from our church. He regularly writes poems in honor and worship of God, according to the Word of God. We are encouraging our students to write poetry and music for the Lord. Tell me what you think.
Thus He speaks, the Maker of the earth,
“Produce your cause, strong reasons bring.
Can your idols flood a desert’s dearth
With blossoms sweet and water springs?
“Can they speak a million days before
And do as I have prophesied?
Nay, for they are empty lies and lore
Of men whose hearts are filled with pride.”
O the charge that clay will lay on God!
The Potter says, “Your idols rust.
Burn the residue upon the sod,
And let Me be your life-long trust.”
Shall He give His glory to a stock
Which man will carve with his own hand?
Should He share His workings with a rock
When He alone divided sea and land?
Thus the LORD has said, “I am the LORD,
Who bridles earth to rest My feet,
As I sit upon the heaven’s shore,
From which I guide the starry fleet.
“Who but I designs a seed to sprout
Into a dainty flower bloom,
Or subjects a storm that roams about
To play whatever role of gloom?”
Roam the earth. There is none else but Him
The Holy One of Israel,
Who commands the brutes of darkness swim
Beneath the sea and schooner’s sail.
Scan the space. The everlasting God,
Yea, only He, the LORD of hosts,
Built the sun and moon to course the flood
Of stars, mere advocates at most.
Search the gods, which cannot speak nor hear.
None else but God almighty saves
In the worst of tempest’s mad career
And from the deadest crypt of graves.
Can those gods forgive and then record
Repentant faith for righteousness?
Only God, the everlasting LORD,
Can blot out man’s unrighteousness.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Thus He speaks, the Maker of the earth,
“Produce your cause, strong reasons bring.
Can your idols flood a desert’s dearth
With blossoms sweet and water springs?
“Can they speak a million days before
And do as I have prophesied?
Nay, for they are empty lies and lore
Of men whose hearts are filled with pride.”
O the charge that clay will lay on God!
The Potter says, “Your idols rust.
Burn the residue upon the sod,
And let Me be your life-long trust.”
Shall He give His glory to a stock
Which man will carve with his own hand?
Should He share His workings with a rock
When He alone divided sea and land?
Thus the LORD has said, “I am the LORD,
Who bridles earth to rest My feet,
As I sit upon the heaven’s shore,
From which I guide the starry fleet.
“Who but I designs a seed to sprout
Into a dainty flower bloom,
Or subjects a storm that roams about
To play whatever role of gloom?”
Roam the earth. There is none else but Him
The Holy One of Israel,
Who commands the brutes of darkness swim
Beneath the sea and schooner’s sail.
Scan the space. The everlasting God,
Yea, only He, the LORD of hosts,
Built the sun and moon to course the flood
Of stars, mere advocates at most.
Search the gods, which cannot speak nor hear.
None else but God almighty saves
In the worst of tempest’s mad career
And from the deadest crypt of graves.
Can those gods forgive and then record
Repentant faith for righteousness?
Only God, the everlasting LORD,
Can blot out man’s unrighteousness.
Sunday, January 05, 2014
The Sister Presuppositions of Palaeography and Paleontology
A paleontologist goes searching for fossils with the idea that he's going to find a missing link, some petrified skeleton that will fill his presupposition of naturalistic origins. He has predetermined a narrative without God and he goes looking for the "evidence" that will tell that story. He goes looking for what will "prove" his presupposition. He starts with a position that fits every fossil he finds.
A palaeographer goes searching for an ancient manuscript with the idea that he's going to find something that has been lost, the Bible, that will fulfill his presupposition that the Word of God needs to be found. He has a predetermined narrative that goes looking for the "evidence" that will tell that story. He goes looking for what will "prove" his presupposition. He starts with a position that fits every manuscript he finds.
Is there something authoritative that tells us how the world, how that man, originated? Is that already settled truth? Did God speak and tell us how the world began, how that man began? Is the Word of God true? Is the Bible evidence? Why would man keep looking, when he already knows?
Is there something authoritative that tells us that God would preserve every Word, that believers would not lose any of the Words, even the letters? Is that already settled truth? Did God speak and tell us what He would do with His Words, that His people would not be without them? Is the Word of God true? Is the Bible evidence? Why would man keep looking, when he already knows?
The people searching for fossils are unbelievers. The people who started searching for manuscripts were unbelievers. Unbelief fuels paleontology. Unbelief fueled paleography.
You could make a living, fame and fortune, finding fossils. You could make a living, fame and fortune, finding manuscripts. The palaeographers, the manuscript hunters, were all over the Middle East and Europe, trying to make a name for themselves. Even if they couldn't find it, they could, well, still find it. They had to find it. Their presupposition demanded it, or at least fame and fortune said they needed to. If those two beliefs are already settled -- God created the world and mankind and God preserved every Word -- then why are people still looking? There are wrong presuppositions. Men are not believing God.
I was listening to James White talk about his debate with Chris Pinto. He said something to this effect -- and this isn't an exact quote: "I just want to know what the original text of John is." Or, "I just want to be able to read something that is closest to the original of John." But how does James White know that he doesn't already? Is it scripture that guides him on this position, that the original wording has been lost, and still needs to be found? No. What is it? Palaeography. Principles originated by men, by which they judge ancient manuscripts, that is what guides James White. This is not a faith position.
James Whites professes faith in Christ. I'm not doubting that. When did believers start regarding scripture the same way unbelievers do and have? Believers were judged to be unscholarly, less intelligent. They went to Europe and to really know, to really, really know, you had to fit with scholarship. Scholarship questioned the supernatural. It questioned presuppositions. Presuppositions became up for grabs. A shift came. Now it was in vogue for professing believers to question scripture. This is not the historic or biblical position.
The unbelievers in academia, secular academia, put the pressure on believing academia. They were unsophisticated and cornpone, not to be respected. They really couldn't back up their claims with real scholarship. This syncretism of the secular with the sacred, like Solomon of Israel before the divided kingdom, led to the dilution of the faith.
Now where we stand is the next iteration of the above. The new "believing" academia puts its pressure on other believing academia. When I charged Dan Wallace with changing a biblical position based upon "evidence," he wrote:
In line with this, he writes:
Wallace allows science, palaeography to "lead him to the truth." He will not allow theological presuppositions to do so. This is the shift in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It is also what has affected evangelical and fundamentalist thinking on inspiration, interpretation, and application. There is mounting doubt that starts with doubts about the Word of God, because of the "evidence."
We see the same questioning of creationism. Seven day, twenty-four hour creation is no longer in vogue. Paleontology, the evidence, has caused a shift. Evangelicals are too "allowing the evidence to lead them to the truth."
These are the sister presuppositions of palaeography and paleontology.
A palaeographer goes searching for an ancient manuscript with the idea that he's going to find something that has been lost, the Bible, that will fulfill his presupposition that the Word of God needs to be found. He has a predetermined narrative that goes looking for the "evidence" that will tell that story. He goes looking for what will "prove" his presupposition. He starts with a position that fits every manuscript he finds.
Is there something authoritative that tells us how the world, how that man, originated? Is that already settled truth? Did God speak and tell us how the world began, how that man began? Is the Word of God true? Is the Bible evidence? Why would man keep looking, when he already knows?
Is there something authoritative that tells us that God would preserve every Word, that believers would not lose any of the Words, even the letters? Is that already settled truth? Did God speak and tell us what He would do with His Words, that His people would not be without them? Is the Word of God true? Is the Bible evidence? Why would man keep looking, when he already knows?
The people searching for fossils are unbelievers. The people who started searching for manuscripts were unbelievers. Unbelief fuels paleontology. Unbelief fueled paleography.
You could make a living, fame and fortune, finding fossils. You could make a living, fame and fortune, finding manuscripts. The palaeographers, the manuscript hunters, were all over the Middle East and Europe, trying to make a name for themselves. Even if they couldn't find it, they could, well, still find it. They had to find it. Their presupposition demanded it, or at least fame and fortune said they needed to. If those two beliefs are already settled -- God created the world and mankind and God preserved every Word -- then why are people still looking? There are wrong presuppositions. Men are not believing God.
I was listening to James White talk about his debate with Chris Pinto. He said something to this effect -- and this isn't an exact quote: "I just want to know what the original text of John is." Or, "I just want to be able to read something that is closest to the original of John." But how does James White know that he doesn't already? Is it scripture that guides him on this position, that the original wording has been lost, and still needs to be found? No. What is it? Palaeography. Principles originated by men, by which they judge ancient manuscripts, that is what guides James White. This is not a faith position.
James Whites professes faith in Christ. I'm not doubting that. When did believers start regarding scripture the same way unbelievers do and have? Believers were judged to be unscholarly, less intelligent. They went to Europe and to really know, to really, really know, you had to fit with scholarship. Scholarship questioned the supernatural. It questioned presuppositions. Presuppositions became up for grabs. A shift came. Now it was in vogue for professing believers to question scripture. This is not the historic or biblical position.
The unbelievers in academia, secular academia, put the pressure on believing academia. They were unsophisticated and cornpone, not to be respected. They really couldn't back up their claims with real scholarship. This syncretism of the secular with the sacred, like Solomon of Israel before the divided kingdom, led to the dilution of the faith.
Now where we stand is the next iteration of the above. The new "believing" academia puts its pressure on other believing academia. When I charged Dan Wallace with changing a biblical position based upon "evidence," he wrote:
One reviewer criticized my views as follows: "Wallace looked at evidence and then changed what he believed about Scripture." Actually, I don't take that as a criticism, because the evidence I looked at was what informed how I should understand the text.
In line with this, he writes:
Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions.
Wallace allows science, palaeography to "lead him to the truth." He will not allow theological presuppositions to do so. This is the shift in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It is also what has affected evangelical and fundamentalist thinking on inspiration, interpretation, and application. There is mounting doubt that starts with doubts about the Word of God, because of the "evidence."
We see the same questioning of creationism. Seven day, twenty-four hour creation is no longer in vogue. Paleontology, the evidence, has caused a shift. Evangelicals are too "allowing the evidence to lead them to the truth."
These are the sister presuppositions of palaeography and paleontology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)