Blogspotted by Phil Johnson

For those of you who don't know, Blogspotting is the occassional check in the internet world for blogs that link back to yours, be it for a comment you made or an article you wrote. I saw on Phil Johnson's blog (Pyromaniac) I was on his latest list. While much appreciated and always nice to be linked by the "big daddy blogs," I did notice he spelled my name wrong: it's not Eddie Gonzales but Gonzalez...two Z's. But, that's cool. Can't go wrong with the artwork he posts on there. Thanks, Phil. Keep up the good work.

Good Knowledge or Good Skill?

I have recently been training or assisting trainers with classes on a new computer system our hospital will be using come November. In that time, I have had the opportunity to see 6 or 7 different styles of teaching, and 6 or 7 different levels of knowledge with respect to the trainers. During one of the sessions today (as an assistant; catch people up who are lagging), I noticed the trainer had a lot of knowledge, but had poor teaching skills. Thinking back to other trainers, I noticed one or two had relatively little knowledge (just the basics, enough to give us what we needed to know for that class session; no help if we had other questions) but were extremely good communicators and instructors: patient, spoke with a good tone, defined terms well, etc.

What's the point? I will be the facilitator for our Home Fellowship Bible Study tonight (first part of Mark ix by the way. the transfiguration). I will do some teaching and try and guide the questions and discussions, and attempt to keep things on track, on topic, and allow folks to learn and grow (myself especially). But in a Bible Study, what is a better situation: to have a teacher with a lot of knowledge but poor teaching skills, or one with great teaching skills but lacks Scriptural knowledge above the basics? We all would love to see the perfectly balanced teacher, with great knowledge and great skill. But let's get real. Most Bible studies are not going to have R.C. Sproul come along and be their leader. Maybe we can get close to a balance, but we tend to be to one side or the other. Admittedly, I am towards the knowledge side; I have teaching skills to work on.

While that is not a problem in and of itself, the direction of a Bible study most of the time depends on the teacher (or facilitator). A group with a good communicator will go one way. A group with a braniac will likely go another. In this morning's session, the instructer had a lot of knowledge but was such a bad instructor and communicator, people were falling behind left and right, simple concepts were confusing, and so forth. I would hate to think that with the knowledge I have (not saying it's a lot, but I'd be dishonest if I said I haven't done my share of study and research) I would fail to communicate that knowledge in such a way that others could actually benefit. But with those with good skills and little knowledge, they are able to engage with you and get you interested, but incapable of taking you any further, or helping you get deeper.

I don't have an answer to that question in a world where the perfectly balanced instructor is hard to come by. We should all strive to have both great knowledge and great skill, but until then, what do we do?

These are just some ramblings of thoughts today.

UPDATED: Well, the Bible study went fairly well last night. We went over the transfiguration and had some time to discuss what the "Kingdom of God after it has come with power" was and that phrase's relationship to the transfiguration event. I think I fell short of doing a good job, honestly. In hindsight, I allowed myself to be more of a teacher than a facilitator. There were some great dialogues and even a couple of disagreements on key portions of the transfiguration tale as told by Mark, but at the end, when discussing the Kingdom of God, I probably came off sounding more like someone who believes "I'm right and your wrong." That was not my intention, and I hope no one perceived it that way, but I can see why someone might. Despite this, I learned a lot and hope others learned as well. Also, I do wish we had had more time for prayer; but I trust the Lord's leading and the Holy Spirit's guidance during our meeting times. Some nights we study a lot. Some nights we don't study at all, but pray together and sing hymns and worship songs. Let the Lord do His will, then He'll take care of the rest.

Adopting the World's Ways for Evangelism

Phil Johnson posted a great response to an e-mail he received recently:

And that's what I want to respond to: the notion that adopting the fads of a juvenile, egomaniacal, shallow, self-destructive, worldly culture "works" better as an evangelistic strategy than a lifestyle that gives more prominence to the principle of Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:9.

He points out the logical conclusions or possibilities of taking that approach.

Can we agree, for example, that it wouldn't really be good or necessary to get a sex-change operation in order to reach the transgendered community? OK, you might dismiss that as something inherently sinful and wrong for that reason. Well, how about pulling a few teeth and adopting the trashy patois and tasteless lifestyle of Jerry Springer's guest list in order to have a more effective outreach to the underbelly of the cable-TV community? How serious are you about your strategy of accommodation and conformity?

And why is it mainly the lowbrow and fringe aspects of Western youth culture that this argument is invariably applied to? Why are so few Christian young persons keen to give up video games and take up chess in order to reach the geeks in the chess club? or give up heavy metal and learn the cello in order to have a ministry to the students who play in the orchestra?

We should follow the example of Christ. We can be a friend to those of the world, but we never have to abandon the way of faith and truth. We are supposed to show those of the world the way of Christ.

Odysseus' Tomb Found

An archeaological find on par with that of Troy's discovery is finally reaching the news of the English speaking world. This article from the Madera Tribune talks about the discovery of the tomb of Odysseus and the city of Ithaca. This is an amazing find for ancient and world historians.

But two pieces of fairly recent evidence suggest archeologists were looking in the wrong place. In 1991, a tomb of the type used to bury ancient Greek royalty was found near the hamlet of Tzannata in the hills outside Poros. It is the largest such tomb in northeastern Greece, with remains of at least 72 persons found in its stone niches.

One find there is particularly telling. In Book XIX of the “Odyssey,” the just-returned and still disguised Odysseus tells his wife (who may or may not realize who she’s talking to; Homer is deliberately ambivalent) that he encountered Odysseus many years earlier on the island of Crete. He describes in detail a gold brooch the king wore on that occasion.

A gold brooch meeting that precise description lies now in the archeological museum at Argostoli, the main city on Kefalonia, 30 miles across the island from Poros. Other gold jewelry and seals carved in precious stones excavated from the tomb offer further proof the grave outside Poros was used to bury kings.

Greek archeologists also found sections of ancient city walls extending for miles through the hills around and well beyond Poros. These surround both the village and a steep adjacent hill which bears evidence it once served as an acropolis, what the Greeks called hilltop forts in most of their major cities. The stones of the walls date to about 1300 B.C., the approximate time of events described in the “Iliad” and “Odyssey.”

Most likely, the royal capital at Ithaca was a much larger city than Poros or any other town on either modern Ithaca or Kefalonia. It would have needed a major source of water. There is none on modern Ithaca, but streams abound near Poros, where there is also a small man-made lake. This area had the necessary water. The island now called Ithaca likely did not.

Several other ancient settlements found elsewhere on Kefalonia also suggest the island was a major population center at the time of Odysseus.

This is exciting. I hope that more details and photographs, even videos, are made available soon.

Rare Jewel Magazine: Review, Sept-Oct 2005 edition

The September/October 2005 edition of Rare Jewel Magazine arrived and presented the question of can another Great Awakening happen in America. As a student of History--Church History to be exact--the theme of this edition enticed me. Truly, what greater era in the history of America was there than the seventeenth thru the nineteenth centuries? Looking back at the awakenings, we can review the good and the bad, the wheat and the chaff.

Let's look at the question posed on the cover of the latest issue: "The Next Great Awakening...Can it Happen Here?" To answer this question, the magazine presents a number of articles, an interview, historical surveys, and quick analyses directed primarily at the target audience: Christian Patriots. While I would not qualify as a Christian Patriot, I can look at the information as it is and learn, whether through application or criticism.

The key article (in my opinion) is actually two; one follows right after the other and they have similar points. The two are Kerby Anderson's "The Great Awakening and the American Revolution" and "A Fourth Great Awakening" by Bill Lewis. Both put forth a history of the original revival periods, and the names that hallmarked the respective era; no name to this day has been bigger than Jonathan Edwards in the mid-1700's. The attempt of the former article was to tie the American Revolution in the late eighteenth century, and the radical separation from British colonialism, to the sentiments and mindset established by the religious fervor of the Great Awakening. While there definitely is that connection between the two events, I do not know that Edwards or George Whitefield cared as much about the sovereignty of the seperatist American colonies as they did about ministering the need to be born again and justification by faith.

The latter article infers that the leaders of the three Great Awakenings were Christian Patriots (also referred to in his last paragraph as "kingdom patriots"). After giving a quick survey of the history, Bill Lewis concludes that leaders like Edwards and Charles Finney and Jeremiah Lanphier "are desperately needed in this hour as well; men and women willing to pray and act sacrificially for the sake of the spritiual welfare of America" (9). This conclusion is not one I would agree with as it seems to miss the mark on the practical side of the Great Awakenings themselves, within their time periods, and rely heavily on what happened years down the line as a result of the revivals. The actual revivals were not so concerned with "America" as a land, nor were the goals to exact a revolution in the government. The concern was the spiritual status of the people.

I believe readers would benefit from more writings on the history of the original Great Awakenings. Before we can look ahead (to either anticipate another or to create one) we have to understand what the originals were like in their own context. Today, we just do not have spiritual leaders like we did then, for whatever reason. The pluralism and liberalism that is so vital to America today infiltrates (and definitely has infiltrated) the Church and hurts our ability to raise up good, solid leaders who are grounded in the true Gospel of Christ (yes, we have many great Christian leaders, but who can you think of could be an Edwards or Whitefield?).

For the Christian Patriot, the target audience of Rare Jewel Magazine, I think this is an OK edition. There could have been more on the details of the history, at least by my take. For the conservative American, this will have plenty of useful information. The next issue will be on "Training the Child in the Ways He Should Grow." For a father of two, this issue will be quite inviting. For this edition though, there could have been more. This is such a great subject, and I think the submissions were limited. The design and look is very pleasing and easy on the eyes. Overall, 2.0 Tulips.


**This subscription was provided to me by Rare Jewel Magazine through Mind and Media. I received a year long subscription in return for these reviews, and nothing more.**

Filed in: Magazine Review

Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement

Once again I take up the task of presenting a layman's explanation of the beautiful TULIP of Calvinism. Here we are at the L: Limited Atonement. This sole letter causes so much confusion and strife for the non-Reformed. (One of the strangest things you find, however, is when the arguments come against Limited Atonement, dissenters actually end up arguing against election, not the scope of the atonement...anyway).

Limited Atonement can cause confusion simply with the use of the phrase "Limited Atonement." Better, the idea is Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption. The concept is not negative, as you might get from limited, but very positive, as with definite. The L talks about the scope of the atonement being limited to some, and not all. The ability of the atonement is not limited; the atonement atones completely and perfectly. That's not the concern. The problem has always been the some: who is atoned for? Hence the confusion dissenters have regarding what they truly don't like: unconditional election.

We of the reformed camp believe the some are the elect. Contrary to popular (mis)representation by folks (i.e. major theologians) on the non-reformed side, we do not interpret passages like John iii.16 as saying, "For God so loved the world of the elect that He gave His only begotten son, that all of the elect will not perish but have everlasting life." That's an age old argument made against Calvinists, and just plain foolish. As you may have read on this blog before (see my post on Particular Redemption in John iii.16), the verse you always see at football games, concerts, on T-shirts, banners, is one of the clearest portrayals of a limited or definite atonement in the Gospels. The verse is not evangelistic in the modern, popularized-Christianity sense (evangelism being solely the idea of missionary work, or getting people saved, or having crusades; going out and winning sinners to Christ). The verse does have the evangel in the true sense of the word: the good news, the gospel message.

Still, is a limited or definite atonement truly Scriptural? Or is the atonement as Dave Hunt once said, "conditional?" Christ's teaching on the sheep is a great example of the Scriptural message on this. In John's Gospel, Jesus declared to the Pharisees and others listening,

"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.. . . I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep" (Jo. x.11,14-15).

The good shepherd (Jesus, I am) lays down His life for the sheep. Better, He "lays down His life on behalf of, in the place of, the sheep." Jesus laid down His life, the shepherd to the slaughter on behalf of the sheep, so they might live. The sheep are the shepherd's. He lays down His life for them, not for others. The shepherd does not lay down His life for anyone but His sheep. Notice on this point that Christ even said He has "other sheep, which are not of this fold" (Jo. x.16). Of course here He is talking about the Gentiles who will later be brought in. But see how Christ never said He would bring in those who will be the sheep. On the contrary: there are the sheep, His sheep, the whole of which (the Jews and the Gentiles) will be one flock.

For even more help in understanding the limited or definite atonement found here, look at Christ's statement to some of the Jews present:

"The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock" (Jo. x.25-26).

Those Jews did not believe because they were not part of His flock. If they needed to be part of the flock in order believe, how could they ever believe? Jesus lays down His life for the sheep. These Jews were not sheep. So, did Christ lay down His life for them?

And as Paul wrote,

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life (Rom. v.8-10).

There is nothing conditional in the idea of the redemption by the death of Christ. The scope of the redemption (atonement) is limited to some (the elect), and very definite. You can be sure that if Christ died for someone, they will be redeemed. There are plenty of other passages (see Jo. vi.35-45 for another definitive look at this idea), but I think the point has been made so we can better understand what is meant by Limited Atonement.

Filed in: Calvinism, Grace

Funniest Religious Joke?

At shipoffools.com, the following joke was voted the funniest religious joke out of 951 submitted by Christians, Buddhists, Atheists and so forth. I don't know it it's the funniest I have ever heard, but when you think about it, it's sooooo true.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Pelikan on Tradition and Scripture

I picked up Jaroslav Pelikan's Jesus Through the Centuries from the library earlier today and started reading. I did not get too far (page 10) before I had to get what I had just read posted and into the discussion a little bit. Here is a bit from Pelikan on tradition and Scripture:

Even without settling all the thorny problems of authorship and of dating, we must recognize that in the several decades between the time of the ministry of Jesus and the composition of the various Gospels, the memory of what he had said and done was circulating among the various Christian congregations, and probably beyond them, in the form of an oral tradition.. . . But it is noteworthy that, except for the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper themselves, Paul does not in any of his epistles quote the exact words of any of the sayings of Jesus as we now have them in the Gospels. Nor does he mention a single event in the life of Jesus . . . between his birth and his death on the cross. From the writings of Paul we would not be able to know that Jesus ever taught in parablesand proverbs or that he performed miracles or that he was born of a virgin. For that information we are dependent on the oral tradition of the early Christian communities as this was eventually deposited in the Gospels, all of which, in their present form at any rate, probably appeared later than more or all of the epistles of Paul.

And here we arrive at Pelikan's declaration:

Everyone must acknowledge, therefore, that Christian tradition has precedence, chronologically and even logically, over Christian Scripture; for there was a tradition of the church before there was ever a New Testament, or any individual book of the New Testament.

Did you catch that? Chronologically (a concept important to students of history and historical theology), Christian tradition has precedence over Christian Scripture. This is absolutely true. Keep in mind that no Scripture was written specifically by the authors to be Scripture; Paul did not think to himself (as far as we know, though we can be pretty sure), "I'm gonna write me some Scriptures." The same with Peter and John and Luke and so forth. The letters came as needed. Paul himself told the church at Corinth the evangel he received (1 Co. xv.1-7) which is traced back to a hymn or creedal statement sometime in the forties. This was oral tradition within a Christian community--distinct from Jewish--without a written form of Scripture.

What's on my desk?

For no particular reason whatsoever, I thought I would post the books I have on my desk right now. At this time, some of them are here because we just came from the public library. Others are for study.

• All of Grace, C. H. Spurgeon: an awesome piece of writing; I'll be posting a review on this classic work soon.
• Cruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games, Roland Auguet: one I bought real cheap at the library sale they had; the information is up my educational alley.
• Constantinople in the Age of Justinian, Glanville Downey: another cheap purchase from the library with relevant info.
• The Gospel According to Paul: the Creative Genius Who Brought Jesus to the World, Robin Griffith-Jones: checked it out from the library.
• Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture, Jaroslav Pelikan: on loan from the library; already started it and will soon have blog on a great comment he made (he got his PhD from U. of Chicago before he was 23).
• The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III: The Evangelical Prostestant Creeds, Philip Schaff: a great series from another great historian.
• The Story of Christianity: the Early Church to the Present Day, Justo Gonzalez: a great survey of Church history, with some fascinating bits of analysis and interpretation.
• Writing History: A Guide for Students, William Storey: a great little book for students of History; picked it up for my Historiography course a few years ago.
• A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Zerwick and Grosvenor: a great little aid for my GNT reading.
• NASB Study Bible from Zondervan: this one is my wife's.
• NASB Ryrie Study Bible: that's mine; don't scoff at the "Ryrie" part; it's a great Bible regardless.
• Greek New Testament, UBS 3d edition corrected, with dictionary: I like the 3d corrected over the 4th because it is by far easier to read.
• The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis: no introduction necessary.
• J. Vernon McGee Thru the Bible commentaries (all volumes except 7 of them, I think): this is a permanent fixture on the desk; it actually has a vast amount of sentimental value because of the previous owner and my wife; this set will never leave us, plus it's fun to read in McGee's voice (especially because he writes like he talks).

Soon I hope to have some more room for extra books I need readily accessible for my studies and readings (especially when I move off the library books).

Tyler Williams on Historiography

Over at Codex Blogspot, Tyler has written an excellent post on the subject of historiography and how we should view the Bible, or Biblical texts (an introductory post, I understand, but significant). Mid way through, my own conclusion popped into my mind and was pleased to see Tyler come out with exactly my point: "The Bible is a foreign and ancient book. When approaching the historiographic books in the Hebrew Bible we have to take into consideration how ancient historiography "works" as well as the different ancient literary conventions and codes it employs." No matter what era we look to for an understanding of their writing and telling of history, we have to understand how they tell history. Unfortunately so many today blind themselves and others by applying present day methods and theories to ancient and foreign practices and cultural norms. They lose the truth about what the Scriptural texts are presenting. Especially for those of us who spend our time in Scripture, and for those like me who's passion is history and looking at the Scriptures from a historical perspective, we have to travel back in time, learn from their teachers, and interpret accurately. Our biases will always be there; just make sure your bias is correct.

From Catholicism to Christ: Audio Sermon

I am listening to an incredibly fascinating testimony of and by Richard Bennett, a former Catholic priest who was turned to God's grace and mercy. Anyone with something of a background in Roman Catholicism will probably appreciate listening to this testimony. He gives an amazing perspective on the RCC and how the Protestant world looked to him.

If you would like to listen (61 minutes), click here.

Charles H. Spurgeon's Personal Library

Here's an image Charles Spurgeon's personal study way back when. There were more than 12,000 volumes in there. And I've got, let's see....

CH Spurgeon's "Defense of Calvinism"

This morning, my mind was taken back by Philip Johnson to one of Spurgeon's great works, The Defense of Calvinism. I remember reading this a few years ago when I first asked the question, "What do Calvinists really believe...in their own words?" Always having been an insatiable reader of the Prince of Preachers, God turned my sight on this short piece and to this day I believe it to be the perfect description and summary of Calvinism.

If you are a Calvinist, I doubt you will disagree with me. If you despise Calvinism, I doubt you will come away with any less hatred. Regardless, Spurgeon is right: "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

Spurgeon, while directing his thoughts here towards those who we call Universalists, carefully displayed a general defense of true redemption against Arminianism. Arminians will so often say that "Christ died for all men!" Then His death was not enough to save the lost. You would have to believe that Christ did His part, now you need to do yours. How disturbing a thought, that Christians would believe they had any ability at all to participate in our own redemption. And yet, I know all to well the trappings because I once believed that way as well.

As with Spurgeon, I thank God that He has turned me to His sweet doctrines of grace at so (relatively) young an age. I would urge you to read not only his Defense of Calvinism, but also of other descriptive works by my fellow Calvinists. Why not learn from the teachers themselves, instead of from Dave Hunt or Norman Geisler or Hank Hanegraaff what the doctrines of grace really are? You can always drop me a line.

The First New Testament and Christianity's Reactionary Tendencies

The New Testament we have today, as most Christians recognize, was not formally conceived of as a "canon" until around the fouth century AD. There were earlier collections of our NT letters, but none of them looked like they do now. The earliest New Testament we know of would be considered outside of "orthdoxy."

Marcion, in the mid-second century, wanted to have a legitimate collection of texts containing the uncorrupted, true Christianity presented by Christ and the Apostles. The overtly anti-Jewish gnostic (believing that the material or flesh was evil) rejected the thought of the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT as we know it) being used by Christians for instruction and guidance in the true way. He ultimately settled on a compilation of the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Of course all OT references in those texts were rejected, considered later Jewish infusions to corrupt the truth. With this New Testament, he preached his message of the uncorrupted gospel of Christ.

Some of the early Church Fathers prior to Marcion definitely display knowledge of many texts we would include in our NT's today. They even present passages, e.g. from Paul's epistles, as authoritative, along side the Gospels. An example that enters my mind is Ignatius of Antioch (m. c. AD 107), who quotes and paraphrases passages from many of the letters of Paul, as well as the Gospels of Matthew and John. The difference, though, is Ignatius did not have a compilation available of those letters and manuscripts. In the early second century, there was the Old Testament--whether in Hebrew of the Septuagint--but nothing like even that of Marcion. Here is where the reactionary tendencies of Christianity is exemplified yet again.

The Church had to respond to Marcion. This was a challenge they needed to deal with. This was the spark that began the formation of the canon of accepted Christian Scripture. Leaders of the Church, all over, began to create lists and make collections. Gnosticism was constantly being refuted and dealt with, but the idea of the canon had not been a concern to the Church yet. Once the concern was raised, they took up the task and did what they believed was necessary.

This is truly no different than the typical way Christianity handled controversy in the early centuries; nor is it in any way a problem. The councils and creeds were created in reaction to pervasive and immensly challenging heresies or abhorrent teachings that were seeping into the local churches. The very construction and explaining of the nature of God as a Trinity was a reaction to extremely horrendous and detrimental doctrines that grabbed hold of churchmen; especially leaders. That does not mean the Trinity was created or simply did not exist before the fourth century. The explanation of the Trinity is a reaction to teachings that Jesus was not divine or the Son of God; His divinity was explicitly portrayed in the Gospels and Paul's letters.

The Church reacts to what is going on in the world and within her body. The Church will continue to do so until the Lord returns. When challenges come and the Church has to defend, we are not talking about creating something that was not there originally (well, let's not get into the RCC and such teachings as Purgatory and how we treat Mary; I'm not RCC and am speaking of the Church in general). The teachings are there, grounded in the truth of Christ. Certain challenges just help us bring to light some of the things we have not yet realized.

Ben Witherington on America's Christian Founding

I just read Ben Witherington's recent post on America's Christian founding (click here: Ben Witherington: A Myth of Origins: America's Christian Founding Fathers?). That is a good and challenging blog on the subject.

I just returned with my wife and kids from a trip up to Bakersfield. I read some really great stuff during our stay up there, information I will be passing on as I go here. Plus, the Gators ate up the Tennessee Volunteers on Saturday (college football), and Michael Owen scored his first goal for Newcastle en route to a victory (real football).

Defining your terms

Read over the following creed.

We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty;

And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son,
who was begotten of him before all ages,
the Divine Logos,
through whom all things were made, both those in the heavens and those on the earth;
who came down and was made flesh;
and suffered;
and rose again;
and ascended to the heavens;
and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost;

and in the resurrection of the flesh;
and in the life of the world to come;
and in a kingdom of heaven;
and in one Catholic Church of God which extends to the ends of the earth.

Would you agree to those words? Would you even hold the creed as your own, like the Apostle's Creed? Here is a little more background on the creed to help you out: it was written after the Council of Nicea.

Still need more information? OK, this was the creed of Arius. Let me ask those questions again, knowing the background and authorship of the creed: do you agree with the words? Would you hold it as your own?

How easy it is to be deceived, or even deceive others, merely by the words you use to communicate your message. Even after the first Nicene Creed was written and agreed upon, some Arians (whether actual followers of Arius, or those who agreed with Arius' teachings on the nature of Christ) chose to sign in agreement with the inclusion of ομοουσιος (homoousios) but secretly held to a different meaning for that word than did the Orthodox believers. In Arius' creed above, the Arians poured a specific meaning into γεγεννημενον (gegennemenon), in such a way that the resulting interpretation differed from the Orthodox, though on the surface it looked just like any other creed not considered anathema.

You find the same idea in any discussion on salvation with a Mormon. Our use of the words "grace," "justified" and "faith" differ immensely, yet a Mormon will not hesitate agreeing with you that we are "saved by grace" and "justified by faith." Only once you press the issue are you able to get them to admit the differences. Those investigators not willing to ask them to define some of their terms ("Well, what do you mean by faith exactly?"), or are simply ignorant of the tactics the LDS church uses, can easily fall into the trap of believing they are just like Christians.

These cases merely illustrate that important principle of defining your terms in discussions. You could end up on some strange fields if you assume the other person means something they don't. You can get a lot further if you take the extra time to understand eachother.

Interpretation and Translation compared

Over at the Better Bibles Blog, Wayne Leman has a great look at the relationship between Bible interpretation and Bible translation, and comparing the two processes.

I went ahead and copied the post and placed it here.

I see a direct parallel between the processes of interpreting the Bible and translating it. Of course, we cannot translate until we first understand the original meaning, so translation is, to that degree, dependent on interpretation. But I am referring to a parallelism between the two processes which is sometimes missed in the animated (and often not adequately informed) discussions concerning Bible translation and styles of translating, such as literal versus idiomatic, formal equivalence, paraphrases, etc.

I am a detail person. I really enjoy working with the details of Scripture to do good Bible translation. But sometimes I like to summarize details so that I can see the big picture, the forest, clearly, even though there are many trees, details, which must eventually be referred to.

In summary, Biblical interpretation consists of three steps:

1. What does the text say?
2. What does it mean?
3. What does it mean to me?

Step 1 can involve textual criticism (choice of which original language texts to regard as most reliable). Step 2 is interpretation, often called exegesis, and is the step where there is sometimes disagreement among Bible scholars as to what a particular verse of the Bible most likely means. Step 3 is application. Bible study should never be an end in itself. Otherwise we become Bible sponges, never releasing the lifegiving water of life to others (and sometimes not even to ourselves).

Bible translation consists of three parallel steps:

1. What does the source text say?
2. What does it mean?
3. How do we best express that meaning in the target language?

There is often a big difference between 1 and 2, as people speak language in ordinary ways. For instance, if I say to our son, "It's sure hot in here," I may simply be complaining about the room's temperature. But knowing me, I'm more likely asking our son to open up a window to let in some cooler air. This is an instance where my actual words, that is, what I literally say, has one meaning, but what I mean by what I say has a different, although pragmatically related, meaning. This happens to be an example of what linguists call indirect speech. In many languages indirect speech would not work exactly the same as it would for me here with my English words. In those languages, if I am going to translate the meaning of what I have said accurately, I would need to find some way in that language of (rather strongly) hinting to the listener that I want him to open a window. This example clearly illustrates that literal meaning is often not the same as actual meaning. In translation we always want to translate actual meaning. Sometimes, but not always, it can be the same as literal meaning.

By "best" in step 3 we refer to saying something in the target language which is accurate to the original meaning, and stated in such a way that it sounds clear and natural. A translation should not sound like a translation. Too many versions of the Bible sound like "church language", that is, they sound a little foreign. They talk a dialect of English or another language which is different from the dialect of that language spoken in everyday life. This recalls the period of time when the religious hierarchy felt that the common person was not capable of correctly understanding the Bible if he heard it in his own native language. So the Bible remained in a foreign language, typically Greek or Latin, understandable only to the clergy who had studied the classical languages in school. But Martin Luther, John Wycliff, and others had the vision that the common person could and should hear the Bible in their own language. That vision continues today as the Bible is translated into hundreds of Bibleless languages around the world. But that vision needs to be periodically refreshed within the larger national languages, such as English, as well, so that the ordinary speaker of the language can hear God's Word clearly in their own language, the way they ordinarly speak, their own dialect, not a dialect of slang or vulgarity, but ordinary everyday language, as found in our newspapers, Reader's Digest, letters, and e-mail. God's written revelation is special, true. But it has always been intended to speak to all people, not simply to a special few who have been trained to understand it. God's word is not always easy to understand. Some of its concepts are difficult for our minds (and spirits) to comprehend. But its words should always be as accessible to our understanding, even if the concepts framed by those words are not so easily accessible. We should not require pastors, seminary professors, or Bible teachers to tell us what Bible words mean. That job should be taken care of by accurate, natural, and clear translations. Every word in the Bible should be part of the average person's everyday speaking and understanding vocabulary. We will often need the assistance of those who have special Bible training to help us understand the implications of the words and the ideas behind the words, but the words themselves and the ways they connect to each other (grammatically and semantically) should be part of our everyday language.

Let us thank God for his written word. Let us especially thank him if it is already in your own language. And let us encourage the work of those who translate his word into Bibleless languages and the work of those who translate new versions into clear everyday language which can be understood by each new generation of speakers.

Da Vinci Code: Book Review

Here it is at last: my review of Dan Brown’s popular and controversial The Da Vinci Code. At last check, the novel was at #14 on Amazon.com’s top sellers list. While that may not be #1, try saying your book is in the top 15 two years after it was first published.

I am a late comer on this book. Da Vinci Code has been reviewed over and over, and most everyone knows the basic premise of the story. This is a murder mystery which turns into a search for the Holy Grail. Along the way, we learn about how the Church has suppressed the truth and forcibly conformed history to fit the Christianity’s goal of domination and making sure women were subjugated and never given equality. I will not spend time on the details of the story. My concern is with the presentation of Church History.

The story is fiction. Simple. Being fiction, I really would not fret too much over the "history" in the book. But Brown has gone on record as believing as fact the conspiracies and historical revisionism the Church (to Brown, the "Church" is the Roman Catholic Church; keep that distinction in mind) has done. He really believes the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, that she and Jesus were married and had children, the Church has suppressed that fact, they’ve rewritten history to hide the truth, the four Gospels in the Bible are corrupt and do not contain the true words of Christ, and what are known as the Gnostic Gospels promote Christ’s true teachings. Because he believes his own story, and many (many, many) Christians have bought his bill of goods, I have to take a position on this, educate myself, and be able to defend the truth.

At the center of the novel Robert Langdon (the main character, symbologist, educated in the history of Christianity) and Sophie Neveu (leading lady, cryptologist, ignorant of Christian history) meet with Leigh Teabing (most knowledgeable man alive on the Holy Grail and Christian history) to discuss the Holy Grail, and educate Sophie. This is where we start to see where Dan Brown did his research…but solely on the secret cults and rituals and all of the conspiracies he now believes in. There is no evidence he picked up any sort of scholarly work by an educated Church historian. What he presents is very matter-of-fact, presuppositions galore. There is not a hint of an opposing idea; only that this is truth. Had Brown taken some time to look over any relevant works by Jaroslav Pelikan, WHC Frend, Justo Gonzalez, Henry Sheldon, Philip Schaff, or any primary text of the Early Church Fathers, putting to paper what he did would be a little more involved. There would (or should) at least be a presentation of the opposing story (in this case, orthodox) and then a refutation. Moving on, I will deal with points that Christians are buying into.

"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God.. . . Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book."¹

A bland attempt, at best. We have numerous Koine Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. We have OT manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Aramaic languages (and that includes the Dead Sea Scrolls). The "countless translations" are into English and languages that the masses can read. Additions? Revisions? Sounds like classical Mormon arguments, with the classical lack of evidence for the claim. There really is not much to say about that because each time I have asked for proof when presented with that claim (and in LDS circles, that one comes up all the time), I am given nothing. Not "nothing" by my opinion, but actual silence.

"History has never had a definitive version of the book." Of course that is based on who you ask. But, how is that related to the Bible being a product of man? Really, that statement was thrown in as a side bar, an extra jab, having nothing to do with the point of what he is saying.

"More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them."²

What’s not included is even a sample of what these "gospels" would be. Yet they are all legitimate gospels? Not the four chosen, of course.

The person of Constantine and his role in the creation of the suppressive Christian canon and the orthodox Christian tradition takes center stage in this tale. But, Brown again failed to do his homework. Constantine was not baptized against his will. He did not call the Council of Nicea to cease a battle between Christians and pagans. And he definitely was not the individual who changed the Christian worship day from the Sabbath to Sunday "on account of the pagan Sun-god’s weekly tribute."³ For an excellent review of Constantine and his relationship to the Church in the fourth century, Brown and everyone else interested should read Henry Sheldon’s History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, starting at page 331. That will give you a plain, easy to understand as well as historically accurate view of Constantine the Great.

The real kicker in this section was the depiction of the Council of Nicea in AD 325:

"During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as The Council of Nicea."

Sophie had heard of it only insofar as it being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.

"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon—the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."

"I don’t follow. His divinity?"

"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."

"Not the Son of God?"

"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'The Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."

"Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?"

"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. ". . . By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable."

". . . Many scholars claim the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power."⁴

Indeed, the Council of Nicea was meant to unite Christianity on matters of doctrine and practice. The reason Constantine called for the council was for keeping some peace and unity within the empire. The immediate reason or cause was not the toppling of paganism, especially when "paganism" was not in question at the council. While many items were on the agenda, the divinity of Jesus consumed the majority of the focus and time during the council.

Contrary to Brown's researched understanding of the history, Nicea did not steal Jesus from his originally human state among his followers and establish him as the Son of God in order to expand their power. The first thing to note in Brown's retelling of Nicea is that this was not a battle between Christians and pagans. This was between Christians and Christians: orthodox and arians. Pagans were not involved. Secondly, there was no vote in the same sense Americans undertand within the republican/democratic system. There were debates and discussions, creeds were presented, and one creed was formulated by those discussions, and a final creed agreed upon. You were then to sign off on the creed; if you did not sign, you were anathematized. If you still consider that a voting system, here's a little more information. There were over 300 bishops present, over 95% of them from the East (which, interestingly enough, should have given the arian side more support; turned out not to be the case). Only two people did not sign, and Arius was one of them. Over 300 in favor, with only two dissenting on the creed. Now, if Brown is correct, 300-2 is considered a "relatively close vote." Relative to what exactly?

The Nicene Creed did not refashion the human Jesus as this new Son of God, fully divine. The creed codified what the vast (and I mean extremely vast) majority of Christianity already believed. This arian doctrine that had seeped into some churches had gone beyond the wiles and schemes and falsehoods of Gnosticism. It had to be dealt with in an authoritative way. Hence the creed. Through the character of Leigh Teabing, Brown declared that until AD 325, "Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." This could not be further from the truth. Let's see what Jesus' followers were saying about Him:

Ignatius of Antioch, c. AD 107: "united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God,"⁵ and "For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father."⁶

Polycarp, c. AD 107: "the Eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith."⁷

Martyrdom of Polycarp, c. AD 156: "For this one [Christ], who is the Son of God, we worship."⁸

Epistle of Barnabas, before AD 135: "the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason."⁹

Epistle to Diognetus, between AD 150-225: "In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone?"¹⁰

And that is only a miniscule sampling of the comments made by Jesus' followers about His divinity, well prior to the Council of Nicea. Not even the Gnostics considered Christ a mere man, but divine and outside of the evil, fleshly realm. And, Dan Brown, the vast majority of the other "gospels" not included in the New Testament do not present Him as a man, but more than a man. Yes, even Arius did not agree with Brown.

Lastly, Brown mentions that "Many scholars claim the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers." What about the many more scholars who claim otherwise? Trying to play the numbers game is a logical fallacy. Of course, Brown may consider five scholars "many," but he does have a tendancy towards fuzzy math (300-2 is how close?).

I do believe Christians should read The Da Vinci Code if they want to discuss the issues with their friends and family, as long as they also pick up a copy of Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity, or a similar, highly acclaimed work, to help you understand the truth. Dan Brown is so strait-forward it can be deceptive. However, the failings are almost laughable.

Despite the lack of legitimate historical or theological value, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a definite page turner. The story is riveting for the most part, very fast moving, and mixed well with occassional twists in the mystery. While you are able to catch up with the lives of the characters via flashbacks, some of them are not timed well and hurt the flow of the story. Though the novel fails to be historically accurate, he obviously intended to be one sided and use the short time he had in the story to promote his presuppositions. I was very happy not to see a love story throughout (that was saved for the end, though there were minute hints of the developement here and there), but understand he wanted to keep the lead characters human.

Don't let the hype fool you. It's not great; it is good. The popularity and controversy alone should have you reading this book, but the possibility for discussions and sharing the truth were the nail in the coffin for me. 2.5 TULIPS from me.



__________

1. Brown, Dan, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday: New York, NY, 2003), 236. This is the advanced reader’s copy, so my pages will be different than the regularly published edition, but the content the same.
2. Ibid., 236-237.
3. Ibid., 238.
4. Ibid., 238-239.
5. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, intro.
6. Ign., Romans, iii.3.
7. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, xii.2.
8. Martyrdom of Polycarp, xvii.3.
9. Epistle of Barnabas, v.11.
10. Epistle to Diognetus, ix.4
    

New Review Rating System

With the book, magazine and movie reviews I will be doing on this blog, I thought it would be beneficial and fun to create a standard rating system. What better symbol for the ratings than one based on the great Calvinist creed: TULIP? I can think of none more profound and perfect.

I decided on a rating level from 0-4, with half's included. Here is the image you'll see at the end of my reviews, after the summary (temporary; I plan on changing it down the line):


As an example, if I give a rating of 2.5, you'll see this image:


To be honest, I tend to be a tough grader. I think far too many people will give high marks out of kindness. In this system, anything at or above a 2.5 is a recommendation, or "Thumbs Up" in Robert Ebert lingo.

I have a couple of reviews upcoming, so I look forward to testing this new system.

Soli Deo Gloria

Robert Funk's passing

At the Biblical Theology blog, Jim West reported that Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar, died last night.

U.S. clinches a spot in World Cup 2006

The US mens national team clinched a spot among the final 32 teams going to Germany in 2006. And they did so in style. What better way than to best your archrival, Mexico?

What was the score again? Oh yeah: 2:0!

If you don't know about the Mexican national team, let me sum up their style. They are the dirtiest, cheapest, most disgusting national soccer team in the world; bar none. US absolutely dominated the match, from start to end. You could see Mexico being outclassed and outplayed. US simply has too many skilled players right now, and they are playing well as a team. Mexico decided to continue their dispicable style of play: jumping for balls with elbows up to the opponent's head or back of the ribs; knees always high, attacking the midsection and the groin; coming from behind and sweeping the legs high at the knees; slide tackles with spikes up; shirt pulling with both hands.

With all of that garbage, the US played a strong, skillfull match. I was impressed with their patience and composure, especially enduring the consistently bad calls by the ref. It really took twice as much pressure by the Mexican players to get a call than it did for the touches by the US players.

I am happy with the result. I look forward to what the US team can do in Germany. They truly have some strong, skilled players. They are playing well together. They can be dangerous. Maybe they won't win the trophy, but look for them to go pretty far.

Looking to the "Cloud of Witnesses"

In the letter to the Hebrews is a peculiar phrase most Bible readers know quite well. In xii.1 we find, "since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses," after the author went over the lineage of faithful followers of God, and those who were persecuted and tortured. Looking at this phrase in the Greek New Testament, we can see why it is so peculiar.

τοσουτον εχοντες περικειμενον ημιν νεφος μαρτυρων (tosouton echontes perikeimenon heimin nephos marturon)

These witnesses, or martyrs (μαρτυρων) in the early sense, were Jews, Hebrew people, not Christians. These were the predecessors, who did not receive what was promised because that time of completion had not yet come (xi.39-40). The description given of all of those witnesses together is peculiar: "so great a cloud of witnesses." This is not a Biblical metaphor, but a Classical metaphor. This phrase would have been quite familiar to an educated audience in the first century AD. As Vincent's points out, you find this phrase in some classical Greek works. In Herodotus' Histories, Themistocles gave a speech to the Athenians, saying they had "driven from the shores so great a band of enemies" (Hrd. Hist. viii.109). The Greek is the important part:

νεφος τοσουτο ανθρωπων ανωσομενοι (nephos tosouto anthropon anosomenoi)

The same idea is evident: so great a cloud, or band, or group of people. This is a large, vast amount of people. In Homer's Iliad we see some more imagery, then an explanation and expansion of the metaphorical language.

αμα δε νεφος ειπετο πεζων (hama de nephos heipeto pedzon)

This is from book 4; notice what's being described as a "cloud" and how that could apply to the Hebrews passage.

and a cloud of footmen followed with them (αμα δε νεφος ειπετο πεζων). Even as when from some place of outlook a goatherd seeth a cloud (νεφος) coming over the face of the deep before the blast of the West Wind, and to him being afar off it seemeth blacker than pitch as it passeth over the face of the deep, and it bringeth a mighty whirlwind; and he shuddereth at sight of it, and driveth his flock beneath a cave; even in such wise by the side of the Aiantes did the thick battalions of youths, nurtured of Zeus, move into furious war--dark battalions, bristling with shields and spears (Hom. Il. iv.274-282).

The amount of people was so large, the best description the classic authors and orators could give was that of a cloud: encompassing, everywhere the eye could see. And with that cloud comes the wind, powerful, thrusting.

This is not an Old Testament idea. νεφος is not found in the LXX (only in Heb. xii.1) and conveys a different meaning than that of νεφελη (nephele). νεφελη speaks about an actual cloud; whether or not the passage as a whole is metaphorical, the word is used to tell us about an actual cloud (see Ex. xl.38, Lev. xvi.13, Mt. xvii.5). On the other hand, νεφος is metaphorical, used to convey a symbolic message in a passage, as we have seen above. Most importantly, this symbol is of darkness.

The cloud is not merely something above and consuming, but ominous, looming, dark and bringing rain and winds. Let's not think of darkness as just a lack of light, but in the sense of evil or bad versus good. The darkness is the enemy, the wrong side of the battle. Darkness is the wrong that's been done. Compare the language in 2 Clement:

So while we were thus wrapped in darkness and our vision was filled with this thick mist, we recovered our sight, by his will laying aside the cloud wrapped around us (ο περικειμεθα νεφος τη αυτου θελησει, ho perikeimetha nephos te autou thelesei) (2 Cl. i.6).

These words were written within probably a half century after Hebrews. Combined, these two passages are the only "Biblical" references to such a metaphor. So how does this all apply to the Hebrews passage? How should we interpret the popular phrase?

The "great cloud of witnesses" are those who had gone before Christianity and gave witness to their faithfulness to God and the true way. They are called "so great a cloud" because of the way in which they became martyrs or witnesses: tortured, mocked, flogged, chained, stoned, killed (xi.35-38). Their witness had an underlying tone, a foundation, of darkness. Now, they were encompassing and covering the people of God as a cloud, as a vast band of martyrs.

As a side bar, seeing such a classical reference in this letter reinforces in me the likelihood of a Pauline authorship.

Blogs on Ambiguity

The two latest blogs at Better Bibles Blog are on ambiguity in the Scriptural text, and they are a fascinating read. If you're interested, have a look.

Blogless

I noticed I have not blogged in a while. I actually have had some in the works, incompleted, but have not been able to get to them yet.

Things have been difficult to think about since Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and other towns. Also, people have actually blamed George Bush for what happened. There will likely be around 1,000 dead when all is said and done, and Democrats choose to point the finger at Bush and make this a political thing (hmm, just like they did when planes hit the WTC and Pentagon).

There has been little coverage of the Iraqi stampede where around 1,000 Iraqi people died when someone yelled there was a homicide (suicide) bomber in the crowd. The pictures will make your heart sink.

Well, I'm sick at home, with a sick family. Blessings in the Lord.