Comments on The Vossed World: "The Word of God is a Person"

As long as these posts are anonymous, they will be...

2008-07-28T21:29:00.000-04:00

As long as these posts are anonymous, they will be deleted. Anonymity in "confrontation" is unbiblical, esp. against an elder (1 Tim. 5:19; a "witness", by definition, is not anonymous.

Once again, anonymous posts here will be deleted. ...

2008-07-28T21:08:00.000-04:00

Once again, anonymous posts here will be deleted. It is not iron sharpening iron when anonymity is involved.

The final post from Matthew has been deleted. The...

2008-07-28T19:57:00.000-04:00

The final post from Matthew has been deleted. There is only so much biblical error that this blog will tolerate, especially from those who are posting anonymously. I was half tempted to pull the 4:34pm comment from "Matthew", but I'm leaving it there for now.

I don't mind challenges to what is posted. It functions as iron sharpening iron. These posts really stretch that criterion.

Matthew,I am not going to get into a protracted ar...

2008-07-28T17:35:00.000-04:00

Matthew,

I am not going to get into a protracted argument here. You and I have views about the Bible that cannot be reconciled.

I did not tackle the texts that you provided simply because you and I disagree over their interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm inspiration. So did Vos. You don't think what is written here is compatible with inspiration. I happen to think it *is* compatible.

We also apparently disagree over how much an unbeliever or an apostate can grasp of the word. I don't agree that 1 Cor. 2 is saying what you claim it says. That passage does not an unregenerate cannot come to a right conclusion about the Word of God. It is not claiming that unregenerate men cannot rightly exegete the scriptures nor is it saying that their exegesis (esp. when it accurately reflects the text) constitutes "wisdom of men". All truth is God's truth and as much as an unregenerate stumbles into that truth, it is still truth.

1 Cor. 2 is not saying that the Bible is a locked book to the unregenerate who is attempting to exegete its meaning. 1 Cor. 2 is about "understanding" (and it's a bit reductionist to suggest that exegesis is meant by "understanding"). When Paul says they don't "understand", he's talking about the ultimate life-giving meaning sitting behind the text. I do not agree that this includes the basic "facts" of the Bible... Paul here is talking about those who "crucified the Lord of glory". These men knew the scriptures backward and forward. Christ even told an audience once to learn from them. Not everything they taught in the Second Temple was an aberration. What they didn't understand, like Brinsmead, the ultimate significance of the text in a life-giving way.

Paul himself didn't jettison everything he learned from Gamaliel. The difference between Saul and Paul is that he now understood the significance of the text through the risen Lord of the road to Damascus.

I personally think Balaam was able to grasp much of redemptive history, even as I think he was an unregenerate renegade. I know you'll tell me that his words were inspired. I agree that they are. But I also believe that Balaam's inspiration utilized his own personal exegesis and in doing so, doesn't detract one iota from inspiration or inerrancy.

So yes, the fact that men are unregenerate and end up with damnable positions may or *may not* have anything to do with some of their exegesis. I don't find that problematic whatsoever. This is why Christ has given us his Spirit... to discern what is trustworthy and what isn't through the lens of His Word. And he has given us (me) the body, such as other elders, to aid in that discernment process. Exegesis is a community effort.

As to whether a little bit of truth mixed with falsehood is still truth, of course it's still truth. The resurrection is still true, it is still a fact of history, even when it is taught by Roman Catholicism. That Roman Catholicism is false doesn't change the truth of the resurrection when it is taught by Catholics. N.T. Wright's tome on the Resurrection is a very good book. That he's all messed up on justification doesn't change the value of his defense of the resurrection. Come to think of it, some of the best defenses of the resurrection come from the pen of William Lane Craig. He's not a Calvinist. And he's got a problematic view of inspiration. That doesn't change the value of his defense of the resurrection.

Well batman that is my real name. I enjoyed readin...

2008-07-28T16:34:00.000-04:00

Well batman that is my real name. I enjoyed reading your response. You have very elegant words. They remind me of another passage of scripture. And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1Co 2:1-5) Perhaps I was wrong about the itching ears, but I see your response was mainly about the heap of teachers you wanted to defend and not the scriptures I discussed in my post. As I do not care nor study the teachings of these men and it is clear you do I will defer to you as the expert on their winds of doctrine. I did read in your comments to Brian that Brinsmead was now an atheist. I wonder what lead to that. Perhaps a lesson could be gleaned from a man who becomes so focused on the elegance of his words that he gets too smart for God. You said in your response to Brian, “I think N.T. Wright has some good things to say. I think Karl Rahner has some good things to say. Both end up in damnable positions that should be avoided upon pain of life. The pope affirms the resurrection of Christ. If I affirm it too, will I end up Catholic? Not hardly.” You may not end up Catholic but you will still end up confused. I am concerned that you think it is ok to take a little here and a little there and call it truth. The Bible says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. “(1Co 2:14-16) You have said that these men were in damnable positions and that Brinsmead is an atheist. The Bible says that such men are not able to discern the things of God, that they are foolishness to them it goes on to say that it is not possible for them to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Now I ask you to think about this carefully. Is a little bit of truth mixed with falsehood still truth?

Matthew (if that is your real name),I'm not sure w...

2008-07-28T14:39:00.000-04:00

Matthew (if that is your real name),

I'm not sure where to begin to respond. I don't believe I have posted or written anything on this blog (much less taught from the pulpit) that would warrant the erroneous conclusions you are drawing. Further, you've asked I not defend those authors who've been quoted on this blog, but I'm going to do it anyway. There's nothing I've posted from Calvin, Vos, or Piper that would warrant such derision.

1. I wholeheartedly affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture (which, anyone can see, places me at odds with Brinsmead on those points). Where you and I differ (I'm guessing) is on the method of inspiration (and I've already had that discussion here on this blog with Brian). My view of inspiration doesn't diminish one iota the fact that the Scriptures are God-breathed, and in their original form were absolutely and exhaustively without error. The Bible is the very Word of God. Nothing I have posted here suggests I believe otherwise.

I affirm the Westminster Confession's view: "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God".

However, as I stated to the NCT think tank earlier this summer, I believe a good biblical theological systematic that takes into account the priority of Christ would begin with Christology and *then* move into an affirmation of Sola Scriptura, inspiration, inerrancy, etc. (I also think such a confession or systematic should follow the flow of redemptive history, rather than systematizing static categories).

2. Calvin, Vos, and Piper all have affirmed the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. Thus, to lump them in with Brinsmead isn't helpful for the discussion.

3. Brinsmead denies inerrancy. So did C.S. Lewis. Calvin believed in paedobaptism. Vos was a paedobaptist. Piper is a non-cessationist. I think it's a misunderstanding of blogs and publishing in general to suggest that because something is posted, the poster agrees with every point of doctrine of the one who has been posted. That's an ad hominem fallacy.

4. You have not quoted me accurately. That Christ should be the center of how we "theologize" about the Word and articulate such does not mean that the scriptures take away from the Centrality of Christ. Brinsmead's point, and one I agree with, is *how* Scriptures are used and how the doctrine of scripture is articulated can and has taken away from the Centrality of Christ. And those are 2 very different things. How we use and articulate the Scriptures can be altogether different from how the Scriptures actually present themselves.

5. You are attributing words to me that I never said and don't agree with. You said, "you said in your article that We must stop using the Bible as though it were a potpourri of inerrant proof-texts by which we can bring people into bondage to our religious traditions." I said no such thing. That line comes from the original article written by Brinsmead and I did not post it on my blog because it wasn't helpful to the point being made. The line would have been better written "we need to stop using the Bible as though it were a potpourri of proof-texts by which we can bring people into bondage to our religious traditions." I agree with Brinsmead that there are those who are using the Bible in this way. Proof-texting is a bane of contemporary evangelicalism. Texts have been pulled out of context, slapped together with other texts, all to make points that the Bible itself is not making. We need to learn to understand the Bible in its unity and as a whole.

6. Do the scriptures tell us who shot Abraham Lincoln or who served up the slider that Kirk Gibson belted out of Dodger stadium in his only at bat in the 1988 World Series? Do the scriptures tell us about the people group that reigned supreme during the 1000 years prior to Christ's birth *on the Yucatan Peninsula? Did I consult the Bible last week to maintenance my water softener? Do the scriptures tell us what happened at Roanoke or Tunguska?

The Bible is not *primarily* a history text. Oh, the history is real, all right. But the history serves a theological-Christological purpose, and if we miss that purpose, the history is meaningless. The Bible is not history for history sake. And such a suggestion doesn't detract one iota from the inspiration or inerrancy of scripture. The accusation that it does is, IMHO, a failure to grasp the significance of inspiration and inerrancy to begin with.

The scriptures help us understand the true meaning of history even as it unfolds the significant details of redemptive history. All of history has its endpoint in Christ (Col. 1:15-20).

I hope this helps clarify what has been posted.

Sorry for the typo. I meant to say my article writ...

2008-07-28T13:29:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the typo. I meant to say my article written by Matthew.
Sorry typo there. I meant to say, "my article written by Matthew." I look forward to your response.

Breuss wane,Since this was my first blog entry. I ...

2008-07-28T13:25:00.000-04:00

Breuss wane,
Since this was my first blog entry. I thought there was a place to give a name so since that did not happen. You can reply to my by Matthew. I am the one that wrote concerning 2 timothy 4:1-4 being appropriate for this blog.

Therefore I solemnly witness before God and the Lo...

2008-07-28T13:00:00.000-04:00

Therefore I solemnly witness before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is going to judge the living and the dead according to His appearance and His kingdom, preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear. And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths. (2Ti 4:1-4)
Bruce Wayne,
It is clear from your blog that the warning God gives us in 2 Ti 4:1-4 are appropriate for this day and for this blog. You have heaped up many teachers: Calvin, Voss, Piper, Brinsmead ext. and now believe in a myth that says that somehow, believing that,” All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17) takes away the importance of Jesus or the centrality of Him in Scripture. You have even quoted 2 Timothy 3:15? and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2Ti 3:15) as a proof text for your statement. I find this interesting when you said in your article that” We must stop using the Bible as though it were a potpourri of inerrant proof-texts by which we can bring people into bondage to our religious traditions. The truth is that it is the sacred writings that reveal our sinfulness, Gods justice, the redemptive death of Jesus Christ on the cross, His glorious resurrection that proved the penalty for all of our sin was paid, our responsibility to share with the world the truth of God’s love for us, and of the future and the hope He has for each of us who believe are the Word of God and without them there is no wisdom of our need for salvation or of Jesus Christ as central to anything.
Are you so deceived that you have forgotten or turned away from the truths of God’s word and exchanged them for the vain philosophies of men? And what of 2 Peter 1:20-21? “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2Pe 1:20-21)

God says that the scriptures were spoken by Him to men as they were carried along in the Holy Spirit. Do you dare to say that somehow the scriptures take away from centrality of Christ!?! Also you say that you are worried that “the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed” yet in your article you state the scripture is, “"wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15), not wise on such subjects as science, history and geography ¬which it is our responsibility to learn through general revelation” Well which is it? The Scripture is only wise for salvation or all of history? The general historic view of Christ in this world’s system is the view promoted by Satan and his principalities. Is that who you would choose to believe concerning history or is it that of the sacred writings?
If you are going to respond, do not bother defending your heap of teachers rather defend or detract your own statements based on the truth of God’s Word. or make your rejection of it clear.

I believe the greater danger lies with those who w...

2008-07-25T21:58:00.000-04:00

I believe the greater danger lies with those who would so exalt the Bible, that the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed. And *that* is the legacy of the conservativism of our own day.

I didn't toss an ad hominem attack. I am criticiz...

2008-07-25T21:44:00.000-04:00

I didn't toss an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing the doctrine you are pursuing; I am not attacking you personally at all.

I didn't know this guy is now an atheist. I don't know anything about him.

I see in the Christocentric theology a dangerous trend to minimize the words of scripture (reminds me of previous discussions we've had on inspiration).

First, don't make the mistake of thinking just bec...

2008-07-25T15:05:00.000-04:00

First, don't make the mistake of thinking just because it is the text that tells us about Christocentricity that the text is primary. If Christ is the source of the text as its author and He is the one investing it with meaning, He is primary and central, not the text (just as an invention is no greater than its inventor). There is a de facto subservience between text and Person.

Second, the ad hominem isn't helpful, nor is it accurate. I would quote something from the pope if I thought it would be helpful conveying a thought here. This blog is not dominated by, but still dotted with liberal theologians who, in spite of their heresy, manage to exegete some things rightly. I think N.T. Wright has some good things to say. I think Karl Rahner has some good things to say. Both end up in damnable positions that should be avoided upon pain of life. The pope affirms the resurrection of Christ. If I affirm it too, will I end up Catholic? Not hardly.

There are two reasons your analogy doesn't wash: 1. Brinsmead wrote this ditty during a time of his life (as SDA, no less) when he affirmed reformed theology. That this guy is now an atheist is irrelevant. 2. What Brinsmead says here isn't anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years. In fact, given the recent articles written by the guys at Southern, what Brinsmead writes here could have just as easily have been written by one of them.

What I'm hearing here seems to be a kicking against the historical (not to mention biblical) goads of redemptive historical Christology.

How do you know anything about your "Christocentri...

2008-07-25T11:29:00.000-04:00

How do you know anything about your "Christocentric" theology apart from the written word of God? You wouldn't even know Christ was the Son of God apart from the written Word of God.

The link you provided in the original post has another article on how "sola scriptura" can be a "great heresy".

I'm very concerned about the direction you're heading. I mean that sincerely.

I'm not sure I see any reason for a "yes, but..." ...

2008-07-25T09:12:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure I see any reason for a "yes, but..." here. :-)

Could you show me where he says the Bible isn't the Word of God? Could you show me where he says the Word of God isn't alive?

I think you've missed the whole point of his comment.

His point is that the Word of God isn't the Word of God on its own. It is only the Word of God because Christ is THE WORD of God. The Word of God has no life in and of itself apart from Christ for it is Christ The Life who is THE WORD... it is Christ who invests the Word with life.

The Word has no meaning outside of THE WORD, yet we tend to preach from it and teach it as if it were so... and we do this when we proof text with no reference to the biblical and Christological storyline. When we treat the Bible as a "how to" manual for life, we have become no different from Jewish legalism.

The Bible in and of itself is not the Word of God. The Bible has no meaning, no use, no authority, no reason for existence, no value to my life outside of the Person as Word giving it meaning. And *that*, de facto, means that the Person giving it meaning *is* more important that the text itself. In this age of using the Bible as proof-texts for apologetics, we need to be warned against treating the scriptures as if they are more important than the Person behind them.

I realize many will claim they aren't doing this, but too often the practice in our apologetics says otherwise.

Yes, but the article from which you quoted declare...

2008-07-25T07:56:00.000-04:00

Yes, but the article from which you quoted declared the Bible is NOT the Word of God nor is it alive. Do you believe this?

I should add that John 1:1 is also telling us that...

2008-07-24T22:24:00.000-04:00

I should add that John 1:1 is also telling us that Christ *was* the very Word of God from the beginning. So... to draw a distinction between text and Person is a false dichotomy.

The rich typology that organically connects redemp...

2008-07-24T22:22:00.000-04:00

The rich typology that organically connects redemptive history says it's "both/and", not "either/or". The new was anticipated and foreshadowed in the old.

John 1:1 tells us that Christ incarnated the very Word of God. Thus, the text... the Word... is both witness to and emanates from THE WORD.

Question for you:Psalm 119 - nearly every verse - ...

2008-07-24T22:13:00.000-04:00

Question for you:

Psalm 119 - nearly every verse - is that referring to Christ and not the word of God (which was called law, oracles, etc.) at that time.

Heb. 4:12 - Is this also referring to Christ and not the words of the Bible?