Fear and Trembling

(In view of the recent book by J. P. Holding and Nick Peters titled Defining Inerrancy: Affirming a DefensibleFaith for a New Generation , I am re-printing the following post.  I believe the article below addresses some of Holding and Peter’s concerns.  My local newspaper originally published the article.) ARTICLE XV We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning that the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. So begins The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.  Hermeneutics is the science of understanding what the Bible says, and this statement on Biblical Hermeneutics is the collective wisdom of many ...

I am following the recent debate between Norman Geisler and several scholars I respect regarding inerrancy and interpretations of Bible passages.  This debate was sparked in part by a book written by Geisler and Bill Roach titled Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a NewGeneration .  The introduction to that book was written by J. I. Packer.  It was enjoined by a response by J. P. Holding and Nick Peters titled Defining Inerrancy: Affirming a DefensibleFaith for a New Generation . The introduction to that response was written by Craig Blomberg, a scholar whose books have been very valuable to me.  I could not help but notice that Geisler’s book did not receive the endorsement of one person who was key in the development of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: R. C. Sproul.  The Chicago Statement is at the crux of the debate.  (I also lament the fact that several of the original signatories are dead and unable to provid...

This is part three of a multi-part series on “He Has Spoken,” a study published by  The Colson Cente r.  This post discusses the second presentation and discussion in the five lesson DVD curriculum.  This lecture is titled “Being Biblical: How We Miss the Point of Scripture.” John Stonestreet comments that we often hear misconceptions about the Bible’s authority, what the Bible is.  Two of these misconceptions could be called ‘the Bible as a rulebook’ or ‘the Bible as a collection of inspirational nuggets.’  But these misconceptions do not explain the Bible’s non-inspirational portions, which Stonestreet calls “scary."  Some describe the Bible as God’s love-letter to His people, but even that relatively accurate description does not account for the descriptions of God’s wrath and the stories of how that works out in history.  The Bible is also often seen as a book that tells stories about heroes of the faith, but these heroes are often flawed. ...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) Our most recent series of articles for Soli Deo Gloria has looked at the basic rules of interpretation and some practical suggestions to help understand the Scriptures.   We will close the series with a brief exhortation to read the Bible more. We have abundant evidence to prove that the Bible is God’s Word given to us.   The books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses of the events they describe and their message has been accurately communicated to us through the centuries of copying and translation.   (See : Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce)   Those eyewitness testimonies tell us about Jesus’ teaching that the Old Testament was true (Matthew 4:4, John 17:17) and His teaching that the New Testament would be true (John 14:25-30, 16:12-15).   They also tell of the...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all…” – WCF Chapter 1, Section 7 This phrase from the Westminster Confession of Faith has been a great comfort to me as I approach one of the most difficult areas of the Bible to interpret: predictive prophecy.   Predictive prophecy is about the claims that the Bible makes about what will happen in the future.   It especially focuses on eschatology, the study of the end times and what will transpire at the end of the world.   This brief article will discuss the ‘ground rules to use when confronting this difficult area. R. C. Sproul made a classic understatement when he said, “We must approach prophecy very carefully with a sober attitude.”   Sproul makes some interesting points, either directly or indirectly: First, avoid two extremes.   The first is the “skeptical, naturalistic approach” that does away with pr...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) Our current series of Soli Deo Gloria articles is exploring Bible study.   This article will look at a very important tool used to understand the Bible: the Study Bible. A Study Bible contains articles and notes that explain the meaning of particular verses and phrases in the Bible’s text.   I have used several of these Bibles over the years, and I have found them to be most helpful.   The first Study Bible I ever used was the Thompson Chain Reference Bible in the King James translation.   This Bible contained listings of Bible verses that addressed particular subjects.   These lists could be easily followed because they were labeled in the margins of this Bible along with the next reference in the list.   The insights into theology I gained from studying the verse lists in this Study Bible have stayed with me for a long time.   Systematic Theology is the careful study of what the e...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) As promised in our last Soli Deo Gloria column, this article will take a look at three tools that are available to help us understand and study the Bible.   Any book that claims to be the very word of God to man is worth understanding, and we should take the time to carefully explore the Bible’s meaning. Good Bible commentaries are essential.   A ‘commentary’ is exactly what it sounds like: a book that contains a person’s comments or thoughts on a part of the Bible.   No one person is an expert on everything the Bible says, and it helps to consult with scholars who have spent time studying the particular book or passage they are commenting on.   Commentaries on the entire Bible are a good place to start.   These give an author’s or a team of author’s ideas on the entire Bible.   Examples are The New Bible Commentary published by Intervarsity Press and Eerdmans and the excellent Encou...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) Our last Soli Deo Gloria article talked about the original languages of the Bible, and it promised a longer look at English translations.   This article will attempt to guide the reader toward a Bible translation that is just right for a given situation.   A book that gives us information on how to get to heaven and how to live our lives on Earth the way God wants us to is a book that should be translated carefully. There are two basic approaches to Bible translation: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.   Formal equivalence attempts to translate each word in the original language by an English word whose meaning is very close.   This is a ‘word-for-word’ translation approach that places the importance on the meanings of each individual word.   The dynamic equivalence approach attempts to translate the thoughts of the authors into English.   This ‘thought-for-thought’ approach ...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) In our current series of Soli Deo Gloria articles, we have been examining the greatest of books, the Bible.   The Bible was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.   So the Scripture must be translated into our language in order for us to know what God has told us in its pages.   This process can be a difficult task.   Aramaic is a ‘dead language,’ which means that it is no longer spoken.   The Hebrew of the Old Testament is very different from the Hebrew language spoken today because all languages change over time. In fact, the Old Testament text did not have vowels, and vowels had to be added in order to be able to read the passages of Scripture. The same tendency for language to change over time applies to the New Testament, which was written in Greek.   This Greek is different from the language spoken today but also different from the Greek written in an...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.) ARTICLE XV We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning that the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.   So begins The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.   Hermeneutics is the science of understanding what the Bible says, and this statement on Biblical Hermeneutics is the collective wisdom of many evangelical scholars on that subject.     An international conference produced The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics in 1982.   Leaders from many different branches of the protestant church signed it.   Those who sign...

(This article was originally written for my local newspaper.)   Have you ever heard the story of Admiral Cloudesley Shovell?   Shovell was a famous admiral in the British Navy.   He fought in many important battles in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and he was a popular British hero.   But he is infamous for a disaster that occurred in 1707. Shovell was leading a fleet of four ships into the English Channel during a strong storm, and he navigated the four ships directly into the rocks of the Isles of Scilly.   The exact number of sailors killed is unknown, but it is said that the bodies washed ashore for many days after the incident.   The problem was that sailors at the time were unable to accurately measure longitude, the position of their ships.   In a real sense, sailors in Shovell’s day did not know where they were or where they were going.   They had no standard to determine their exact location and course. The way w...