Christ, The Center of Scripture

Note: These videos can now be accessed directly from Telos Theological Ministries HERE.

Dr. Paul Henebury (Dr. Reluctant) of Telos Ministries delivered a series of six lectures to Calvary Chapel Ukiah titled Christ as the Center of Scripture. It was happy coincidence that I stumbled onto them and I'm indebted to Michael Miller for hosting them on his YouTube account.

Well worth watching!

Why Dispensationalism Still Matters - Baptist Bulletin

I thought this was an excellent summary:

Two of the more common hermeneutical and theological viewpoints within the world of Bible-believing Christianity are dispensationalism and covenant theology. [1] Each position represents a version of Biblical orthodoxy. Both perspectives generally affirm the major doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth, salvation by grace through faith in the blood atonement of Christ on the cross, the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave, and the visible and literal second coming of Christ. Thus it is possible for the two camps to recognize the members of the opposite group as spiritual brothers in Christ. However, they disagree strongly on many significant theological points. In particular, these disagreements often involve how one views the expression of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Lurking behind this issue are certain hermeneutical and theological commitments by the two sides. In light of these commitments, this article is an attempt to articulate some of the major differences between the two views from the vantage point of a traditional dispensationalist...keep reading

Hat tip to Kathryn D.

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

There are some interesting dispensational discussions on this site:

Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

An informative note from Dr Stallard discussing the concept and hopes driving the CDH:

The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics at Age Four Dr. Mike Stallard, Baptist Bible Seminary

The Holy Spirit a goddess?

"Moshe Rabbenu, I’ve got a few questions for you: How much does the Torah passed down in your name reflect what you actually said and did and experienced? And now that you have crossed over to the other side, how much space is there between your experience and articulation of God and the God whom you now know in eternity? Why couldn’t you find a woman from your own folk you could stand long enough to marry? And is the bias against women in the Bible directly related to your domestic issues? And Elijah, I have a couple of questions for you too: how does being taken bodily up into heaven in a chariot of fire actually work? Does your body phase in and out of solid matter cohesion like in a transporter beam? Is heaven on the other side of a wormhole? When you killed the four hundred fifty prophets of Baal but not the four hundred prophets of Asherah was it because you really didn’t mind a little goddess worship on the side? Are we feminists right in saying that Asherah was just the Canaanite articulation of the Holy Spirit and not really another God? Those are just some of my questions. I don’t know if Peter had questions or if he just wanted to be in the presence of his holy and revered spiritual ancestors." (Emphasis mine)

I may get smacked for citing so much content from someone else's blog in one hit. But that's life. The above derisive rant wasn't penned by a scornful atheist or your run-of-the-mill radical feminist. These are the words of a minister. In fact, the author is an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

As Dan Skogen notes:

"Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney is...an ordained Episcopal priest who teaches the future leaders and pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America."

Is that how a faithful Christian minister should behave towards the Word of God and the Holy Spirit? Or is the basis for judging what actually constitutes the Word of God founded on whether it agrees with one's ideology? Is whatever fails to meet one's criteria subject to mockery?

Two posts ago I blogged about gay activism and suggested that academics within the Lutheran denomination are beginning to use their selective brand of "hermeneutics" to champion the practice of homosexuality, same-sex marriage and a host of other social ideologies. Judging from Gafney's comments, significant elements within the ELCA are already happily wallowing in the depths of heresy and paganism.

Why would an organization, with the high pedigree that the Lutherans have historically enjoyed, allow people like Gafney to teach at their seminaries?

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 2Ti 4:1-7

I could quote a few more Pauline verses that would be germane to all this and thereby generate the proverbial "gnashing of teeth". Of course, many will hasten to point out that Paul was a misogynist who got some basic things wrong because he was raised in a patriarchal society. Moreover, they'd argue that a lot of the stuff in his epistles is irrelevant to "modern needs" and must be filtered through the lens of the appropriate hermeneutics.

Sadly, the secular media embraces these examples of "Christianity" because their narrative is complementary to where the main-stream media believes an "enlightened society" should be heading. But are these examples truly faithful presentations of God's Word to the unbeliever and babe in Christ?

"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. Act 20:28-31

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. Jam 3:1

Speaking of hermeneutics, according to Gafney:

"Because of what all seminary professors, biblical scholars, seminary trained clergy and religious leaders and careful critical readers of scripture know: we all interpret everything we read or see, including (and not just) sacred texts. Yet there is a misperception that texts – especially religious texts – are independent of interpretation, that their meaning is whatever the literal text says, with no nuance or room for interpretation. And Those who get to say that the text means what it literally says to them, are those with power, frequently white, male, heterosexual, cis-gendered, able-bodied, frequently clergy (with or without seminary education depending on the tradition)."

Are these people actually looking at the texts and sifting out subtle "nuances" that have "room for interpretation"? Or are they beginning with modern diversity-derived presuppositions, and then cherry-picking what they need from wherever they can in Scripture?

I recommend Dr. Robert L Thomas' "Evangelical Hermeneutics - The New Versus the Old". See especially chapters 13 and 14 (Evangelical Feminism & Evangelical Missiology) in regards to the subject of this blog. See Gary Gilley's book review HERE and also note the articles:

Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutics - Part 1 

Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutics - Part 2

Further reading:

Gods and Goddesses

Yahweh and Asherah (Michael Heiser)

Biblical Hermeneutics: Foundational Considerations 

The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism

Touching On Evolution & Hermeneutics

I’ve already mentioned that I was raised in the RCC. My first years were spent being taught by the nuns and I must admit they actually did a fine work of presenting the Gospel message to me and I understood Christ died for my sins, and that He was my savior. It was there I was taught that the OT sacrifices – especially the Abraham-Isaac story – pictured Christ’s future sacrifice. It was also there I was taught a literal Adam and Eve.

When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.

Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.

That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.

Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.

Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.

The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.

During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.

I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.

Other notable articles by Paul:

Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty

Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty

More on hermeneutics

This is a very thoughtful study on hermeneutics by both Brent Sandy and Mike Stallard. I especially appreciate Dr Stallard's response:

The two articles below are part of the discussion of the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Diego, November 2007. Brent Sandy updated his thought relative to his earlier book Plowshares and Pruning Hooks. His article below is modified slightly from the one that he actually gave at the Study Group. He has given me permission to post it here at my website. My response as given at the Dispensational Study Group is posted below it.

“Plowshares and Pruning Hooks and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” by D. Brent Sandy

Response to D. Brent Sandy’s Paper: “Plowshares and Pruning Hooks and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism” by Mike Stallard

The Hermeneutic of Reinterpretation

It’s no wonder we have so many differences in understanding Scripture. Take these quotes for example:

The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)

But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)

Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)

Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)

Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.

The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.

If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)

If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)

The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.

Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:

By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”

Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.