Tag: citation

Quotes to Note 36: The Ultimate End of Reading Scripture

~ Bob Hayton

Having just moved to a new house, there is a lot besides blogging and book reviews on my mind! That being said, I am working my way through God in My Everything by Ken Shigematsu (Zondervan, 2013) for an overdue review. I came across a section worth quoting and sharing with my readership (what few of you are left). I hope it encourages you as it did me.

A. W. Tozer in The Pursuit of God says, “The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men [and women] to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts.”5 Jesus said to the religious elite of his day, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39-40, emphasis added). The ultimate end of Scripture is not the text itself but an intimate, joyful, nourishing friendship with the living God. The written Word helps us encounter and unite with the living God.

5 A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1982), 10. Editor’s note: I took the liberty to correct a typo in the quote as found in the Zondervan title.

[p. 71, bold emphasis added]

Our Divine Playwright

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been making my way through Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology again recently, since our pastor is teaching a systematic class for our mid-week Bible studies. I found Grudem’s discussion of divine providence to be especially helpful. In my teaching on Reformation doctrine for adult SS, we’re getting into this area of God’s sovereignty, providence and predestination, too. The following illustration of God as our divine playwright, has been especially helpful in thinking through the area of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. I thought I would share it here for the benefit of my readers.

It seems better to affirm that God causes all things that happen, but that he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible, choices, choices that have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable. Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture.

The analogy of an author writing a play may help us to grasp how both aspects can be true. In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?” On one level, the correct answer is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed King Duncan?” would be “William Shakespeare”: he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan, William Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William Shakespeare killed King Duncan, Macbeth did not kill him. Both are true. On the level of the characters in the play Macbeth fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan’s death, but on the level of the creator of the play, William Shakespeare fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan’s death. In similar fashion, we can understand that God fully causes things in one way (as Creator), and we fully cause things in another way (as creatures).

Of course, someone may object that the analogy does not really solve the problem because characters in a play are not real persons; they are only characters with no freedom of their own, no ability to make genuine choices, and so forth. But in response we may point out that God is infinitely greater and wiser than we are. While we as finite creatures can only create fictional characters in a play, not real persons, God, our infinite Creator, has made an actual world and in it has created us as real persons who make willing choices. To say that God could not make a world in which he causes us to make willing choices (as some would argue today; see discussion below), is simply to limit the power of God. It seems also to deny a large number of passages of Scripture.

~ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan: 1994), pg. 321-322

A friend at church commented on this analogy along the lines that we have a greater confidence in our God because he has written the script for everything that happens. And He has written in several times where he steps into the play himself. I agree, and want to stress that this whole concept of God being “our divine playwright,” should give us confidence in God and his power and an ability to endure suffering knowing He is on the throne. It should also make us humble and trusting, not proud and boastful. With tomorrow’s holiday on the mind, it should make us incredibly thankful. Thankful that God would intervene and care enough to craft “his story” – history – to include each of us and that He would work all things together for our good (Rom. 8:28).

Romanticism and “The Authorized Version”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Lately, I’ve been reading a fascinating work on the King James Bible produced by Baylor University Press. The King James Bible and the World It Made edited by David Lyle Jeffrey includes contributions from Mark Noll, Alister McGrath, Lamin Sanneh, David Bebbington, Robert Altar, Philip Jenkins, Laura Knoppers and others. The book is a collection of essays reflecting on the legacy of the King James Bible. But these essays are a cut above the typical book touting the King James on its 400th Anniversary. Many of the essays offer profound historical insights and analysis on the King James Bible.

David Bebbington, professor of History at the University of Stirling, Scotland, pointed out the fact that the King James Version was not always known as “The Authorized Version.” The title was first applied to the King James Version in 1805 by the newly created British and Foreign Bible Society.

The following conclusion to Bebbington’s chapter, captures his contention that “the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility.”

————————————-

Over the previous two and a half centuries, the King James Bible had passed through a striking trajectory. In the middle years of the eighteenth century, the version was generally used but not especially respected. Its status rose from the last years of the century onwards as a taste for the past developed, the translation became identified with national feeling, the British and Foreign Bible Society circulated it, and the title the “Authorized Version” emerged. Criticism of the defects of the translation nevertheless created a demand for revision, but both the practice of the revisers and the reaction of the public confirmed the high esteem enjoyed by the King James Version. Appreciation by a wide cross section of the population culminated in the celebrations of 1911, when it was hailed as a marvel of religion and literature alike. The English Bible, it was generally held around that date, was the foundation of national greatness. Dissenting voices came from critical scholars, Roman Catholics, devotees of Tyndale, and increasingly from those within the churches who thought the cult of the Bible as literature was obscuring its spiritual value. The result was the plethora of new translations which gradually eclipsed the Authorized Version during the later twentieth century. The rearguard defense of the older Bible was mounted by intellectuals concerned for its cultural role and conservative evangelicals bolstering their doctrinal position. The former were rather more salient than the latter by 2011. The changing estimate of the King James Bible was clearly bound up with the whole history of Britain during the period, political as well as ecclesiastical, social as well as intellectual, but the key explanation for the trajectory was identified by both C.S. Lewis and Ronald Knox. The two men pointed out that the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility. A “taste for the primitive and the passionate,” as Lewis called it, flourished in Britain during the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, but was superseded in the later twentieth century by other attitudes that have been variously labelled “expressivist,” “postmodernist,” or simply “anti-Romantic.” The Authorized Version, fortified by the preferences of the times, could withstand the call for greater accuracy in the nineteenth century but not the challenge of more intelligible versions in the twentieth. This cultural factor, more than any other, explains the altering fortunes of the translation of 1611. The reputation of the King James Bible in Britain was hugely but temporarily enhanced by Romantic feeling. (pg. 65-66)

————————————-

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Baylor University Press.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baylor University Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Quotes to Note 26: D.A. Carson on the Diminishing Authority of the Scriptures

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Here is another jewel by D.A. Carson from his recent book, Collected Writings on Scripture (Crossway, 2010; compiled by Andrew Naselli). In the conclusion to his essay, “Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture”, Carson turns his sights on conservative Christianity and our own contribution to the diminishing authority of Scripture. The following excerpt is a bit lengthy, but I trust it will prove helpful. I found it painfully close to home as I think about many sectors of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism.

Carson starts this section with, “A high view of Scripture is of little value to us if we do not enthusiastically embrace the Scripture’s authority.” He goes on to allege that we “reflect the antiauthoritarian stance that is currently endemic to the Western world.”

He continues:

This libertarianism has engendered two surprising children. The first is a new love of authoritarianism among some believers: they do not feel safe and orthodox unless some leader is telling them exactly what to say, do, and think. Inevitably this brings some power lovers to positions of religious leadership, supported sometimes by a theology that ascribes “apostleship” or some other special, charismatic enduement to them, sometimes by a theology of churchmanship that makes each pastor a pope. The authority of the Scriptures is in such instances almost always formally affirmed; but an observer may be forgiven if he or she senses that these self-promoted leaders characteristically so elevate their opinions over the Scripture, often in the name of the Scripture, that the Word of God becomes muted. The church cries out for those who proclaim the Scriptures with unction and authority while simultaneously demonstrating that they stand under that authority themselves.

The second is a fairly conservative mood, a reaction to the times, that some interpret as a great blessing. But this conservative swing does not appear to be characterized by brokenness and contrition. Far from it: it is imbued with a “can do” mentality not far removed from arrogance. Many of the most respected religious leaders among us are those who project an image of total command, endless competence, glorious success, formulaic cleverness. We are experts, and we live in a generation of experts. But the cost is high: we gradually lose our sense of indebtedness to grace, we no longer cherish our complete dependence on the God of all grace, and we begin to reject themes like self-sacrifice and discipleship in favor of courses on successful living and leadership in the church….

Mere conservatism must not be confused with godliness, mere discipline with discipleship, mere assent to orthodox doctrine with wholehearted delight in truth….

Along with the arrogance has come the exegetical and philosophical sophistication that enables us to make Scripture support almost anything we want….

…even some of us who would never dream of formally disentangling some parts of the Bible from the rest and declaring them less authoritative than other parts can by exegetical ingenuity get the Scriptures to say just about whatever we want–and this we thunder to the age as if it were a prophetic word, when it is little more than the message of the age bounced off Holy Scripture. To our shame, we have hungered to be masters of the Word much more than we have hungered to be mastered by it.

The pervasiveness of the problem erupts in the “Christian” merchant whose faith has no bearing on the integrity of his or her dealings, or in the way material possessions are assessed. It is reflected in an accelerating divorce rate in Christian homes and among the clergy themselves–with little sense of shame and no entailment in their “ministries.” It is seen in its most pathetic garb when considerable exegetical skill goes into proving, say, that the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexuality but not homosexuality itself (though careful handling of the evidence overturns the thesis), or that the Bible’s use of “head” in passages dealing with male/female relationships follows allegedly characteristic Greek usage, and therefore, means “source” (when close scrutiny of the primary evidence fails to turn up more than a handful of disputable instances of the meaning “source in over two thousand occurrences). It finds new lease when popular evangelicals publicly abandon any mention of “sin”–allegedly on the ground that the term no longer “communicates”-without recognizing that adjacent truths (e.g., those dealing with the fall, the law of God, the nature of transgression, the wrath of God, and even the gracious atonement itself) undergo telling transformation.

While I fear that evangelicalism is heading for another severe conflict on the doctrine of Scripture, and while it is necessary to face these impending debates with humility and courage, what is far more alarming is the diminishing authority of the Scriptures in the churches. This is taking place not only among those who depreciate the consistent truthfulness of Scripture but also (if for different reasons) among those who most vociferously defend it. To some extent we are all part of the problem; and perhaps we can do most to salvage something of value from the growing fragmentation by pledging ourselves in repentance and faith to learning and obeying God’s most holy Word. Then we shall also be reminded that the challenge to preserve and articulate a fully self-consistent and orthodox doctrine of Scripture cannot be met by intellectual powers alone, but only on our knees and by the power of God.

(D.A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture [Crossway, 2010], compiled by Andrew Naselli, pg. 106-109; originally part of a chapter in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon [Zondervan, 1986], ed. by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Emphasis added.)

Quotes to Note 14: Christian Hedonism in The Shepherd of Hermas??

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’ve been reading through a nice little edition of The Apostolic Fathers recently put out by Moody Press. Today, I came across a section in The Shepherd of Hermas that sounds a bit like what John Piper might say. I’m not endorsing everything in The Shepherd of Hermas, there are plenty of reasons why it shouldn’t be considered to be canonical (or part of the NT), but this little bit caught my attention. Let me know what you make of it or what you think of this quote.

I’m quoting from the 10th commandment which focuses specifically on grief caused by the inability to do something through doubt or grief after getting wrongfully angry over something.

Both these are grievous to the Holy Spirit– doubt and anger. Wherefore remove grief from you, and crush not the Holy Spirit which dwells in you, lest he entreat God against you, and he withdraw from you. For the Spirit of God which has been granted to us to dwell in this body does not endure grief nor straitness. Wherefore put on cheerfulness, which always is agreeable and acceptable to God, and rejoice in it. For every cheerful man does what is good, and minds what is good, and despises grief; but the sorrowful man always acts wickedly…. For the entreaty of the sorrowful man has no power to ascend to the altar of God [because] grief… mingled with his entreaty, does not permit the entreaty to ascend pure to the altar of God…. Cleanse yourself from this wicked grief, and you will live to God; and all will live to God who drive away grief from them, and put on all cheerfulness. [pg. 222 of the 2009 Moody edition of The Apostolic Fathers]