Chapter Summaries of: “Archaeology & The Old Testament” by Alfred J. Hoerth

I. Introduction [Pp.13-16]

CHAPTER 1: ARCHAEOLOGY: WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT DOES, WHAT IT DOES NOT DO [pp.13-30]

A DEFINITION THAT EMBRACES PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC TIMES

Like anything thing else in life, coming to terms with any given subject is the doorway to intelligible discourse.  So, what is archaeology?

 Archaeology is a science or art—or both—which is concerned with the material remains of man’s past. There are two aspects to the archaeologist’s concern.  The first of these is the discovery and reclamation of the ancient remains; this usually involves field excavation or at least surface collecting. 

The second concern is the analysis, interpretation and publication of the findings. [p.14]

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

An Archaeologist Is not a Geologist: while he knows little about rocks, they are of interest to him when the information in the “rocks” reveal some aspect of an ancient civilization (e.g., regional trade activities)

An Archaeologist Is not a Paleontologist: few archaeologists are trained in fossils, while there are those who know how to recognize bones relative to skeletal human remains.

An Archaeologist Has Geographical Borders:  the fact remains that one has a limited time frame to specialize in a certain part of the globe and the choosing of pre-historic or historic archaeology must be made.

Archaeology is peculiar to Christianity—namely that the biblical issues are foremost in archaeological studies.    [p.15]

An Archaeologist is a historian who is not limited to the written word, but goes beyond and literally digs out remains of ancient peoples.  Through a synthesis of this additional data with the written word, they provide a fuller history of ancient culture than is possible from written sources alone. [p.16]

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY ILLUMINATES [Pgs.16-18]

The value of archaeology to the understanding of biblical knowledge is how it illumines the various ways cultures, and historical settings of the Bible obtain.

Aids in translation and exegesis and it aids in understanding people, places, things, and events in the Bible.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY CONFIRMATION [Pgs.18-21]

Some people mistakenly use archaeology to prove, confirm, or authenticate the Bible.  While archaeology has served Christianity well by taming it’s Liberal Critics, many Conservative Christians have misappropriated the data much to their own detriment [p.18-19]. 

Halley’s Bible Handbook commits this authentication fallacy because it often uses old and erroneous evidences.  A good rule of thumb is never to assume too much

While Archaeology can demonstrate that Solomon was the king of Israel, it does not then follow, that said discipline can prove he was the wisest man to ever have walked the earth.    Again, archaeology can prove that there was a census when Jesus was born but it does not then follow that Jesus was divine from these proofs. 

THE STONES AND THE SCRIPTURES [Pgs.21-22]

The book “The Stones and the Scriptures” put skeptics at bay as author Edwin Yamauchi summarized the relationship of archaeology to the Bible and shows how archaeology has tempered biblical skeptics. Too often he argues, the persistent skepticism is not justified.

Some hold that unless there’s outside confirmation of a Biblical person, it ought not be believed.  Yamauchi basically says that approach is a mistake because what can be known about the past from archaeology is a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction.

Moreover, he asserts that despite the odds, biblical historicity is supported via archaeology.  The interlocking difficulties that have not yet been so resolved do not alter the overall support of biblical historicity or archaeology.

THE SCIENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY [Pgs.22-30]

In the near east, the traveler is immediately aware that ancient ruins are all over the place.  These ancient cities in the Near East are called khirbets or tel(l)s.  This is an ancient cite in which some of the ruins remain visible.

Many tells resemble natural hills or low mesas, and in the nineteenth century this clandestine fact became apparent.  The pre-Greeks of Palestine usually settled atop a natural hill.

Excavating an ancient cite is no easy task.  First one must choose a cite (contingent upon the interests of the archaeologist).  To excavate an ancient cite permission must first be granted by the officials in power.  A Modern staff of archaeologists requires many trained specialists (a team is necessary) such as; Photographers, paleontologists, Geologists, botanists, recorders, who also need adequate funding.

Dwellings (tents are common).  Most tells are too large to entirely excavate so the team must only choose a section to dig.  Before digging, a field architect actually draws out a grid system from which to execute the digging.

When digging, an archaeologist actually isolates strata.  A Stratum is a floor level occupation surface together with walls and debris above and below which belong to it in time.

Archaeology is both science and art and is demonstrated as the archaeologist follows the clues that allow accurate separation of occupation.

Today, most archaeologist’s use the baulk method of excavating which gives the cite a checkerboard appearance.

The archaeologist finds artifacts from the past and must determine from what period they come.  Great care must be taken when excavating for much of the past uncovered is destroyed in the process.  If properly done, a piece of human heritage has been recovered and preserved.

Reflections from 1 Corinthians CHAPTER 7:12-16 “MARRIAGE, SINGLENESS, & DEVOTION TO CHRIST: CONCERNING MARRIAGE TO AN UNBELIEVER” Part 2

            Paul now addresses the spouse married to an unbeliever.  The married are to remain married but if there’s desertion or divorce they are to remain as they are and not cling to another.  To the unmarried, they are to remain single, but if they lack self-control, they are to marry.  To the married who are with an unbelieving spouse Paul says:

12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

For Paul, when one spouse converts to Christ it’s their duty to stay together and not divorce because of conversion so long as the spouse consents to live together.  This issue was difficult then and remains unto today.  Emotions run high, words are spoken, insults are unleashed, and at times physical abuse occurs.  This can be a difficulty and tricky situation to navigate but there’s a reason for the command:

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Puzzling as it may be, here’s my best shot at getting the point.  Biblically one is not redeemed because of another’s trust in the living God.  For personal repentance is required of each one to be rescued from God’s wrath. 

Second, the allusion to “unclean” and “holy” are OT themes where being set apart is a sign that one is part of the covenant community and thus males were to be circumcised, the people were to eat kosher foods, etc. 

Third, taking part of said activities were signs one was part of the covenant community but did not guarantee one was part of the remnant (i.e., real regenerated believers in heart evidenced by their obedience to Yahweh).  That is, not all Israel was saved evidenced by their recalcitrant lives and while their lineage is Jewish not all were sons of Abraham (i.e., not all had the faith of Abraham).

Fourth, as it was then, so it is today where people partake of the covenant community’s activities but remain unbelievers.  So, what does Paul mean by “unclean and holy”?  Perhaps being around the believing community does offer an opportunity for genuine faith to arise in both spouse and children.  Again, even if they don’ have genuine saving faith, the Christian theist’s worldview has an impact on them that aids mirroring the image of God and somehow they are “clean and holy”

This text is tough to decipher, nevertheless when a text in Scripture is puzzling, the wise way to proceed is to use what is clearest in Scripture to deal with and try to understand the more difficult passages.  Paul continues:

15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Paul notes several things here.  First, the previous verses on “clean and holy” can’t mean someone is in the covenant family because he addresses the issue of “saving” one’s spouse.  Personal repentance and faith is a necessary condition for salvation, thus one can’t be “saved” on another’s faith in Christ (e.g., your parents faith).

            Second, Paul wants believers to understand that in this present evil age, believers married to non-believers will at times experience desertion or divorce.

            Third, sometimes spouses believe that if they persevere in the marriage they will be able to save their spouse via example, but Paul reminds them that this is never a guarantee.  It may happen, but it may not.

            Fourth, the bondage that such a believer may experience is not what God has designed for them but instead His peace.  What could this mean?  Minimally, once we were God’s enemies but now are his friends because of Christ, wrath is no longer ours to bear.  This peace is to be mirrored in our relationships.  He’s saying, “If they want to leave, let them go and cling to Christ”.

Featured

Reflections from Scripture_ 1 Corinthians CHAPTER 7:1-5 “HOW CAN WE HONOR ONE ANOTHER IN THE MARRIAGE UNION?”

1-corinthians

CHAPTER 7:1-5 HOW CAN WE HONOR ONE ANOTHER IN THE MARRIAGE UNION?

            In chapter 7 Paul continues the theme of believers walking uprightly in our relationships.  Because of Christ’s atonement (i.e., his sacrificial substitutionary death on the cross and his resurrection for those who trust in him), God is glorified in our bodies but how is that accomplished.  Here it focuses on the marriage union between a man and a woman.  Pail writes:

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise, also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.(1 Cor.7:1-5)

Let’s make several observations.  First, it’s good to be single.  Apparently, someone had previously written to Paul from Corinth concerning the state of the church and wrote: “…it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”  Here, he can’t mean that there is to be no physical contact because he would be contradicting his command elsewhere to greet one another with a holy kiss.

Contextually, this has to do with sexual intercourse as the following verses unfold.  What’s “good” about a man not touching a woman?  It seems he’s referring to the virtue of being unmarried for the purpose of glorifying God and being about the business of the kingdom as the rest of the chapter depicts.  That is, singleness in the church is not to be frowned upon, but rather appreciated and lauded.

As the self-existent One, who is the source of all life, the virtue of goodness is necessarily based on God’s ontological status (i.e., the divine nature in all its perfections shared by each member of the trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit) and thus the Creator rather than the creature determines what is good.  Here, to be single is good, but immorality is not and thus a real problem.  Thus, Paul offers a “game changer”, as we say.

Second, it’s good to be married.  While singleness is a good thing, it’s not if immorality is a struggle, thus, marriage is the good option Paul commands:  But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.  The clause, “But because of immoralities” calls attention to sexual sin contextually (6:12-20) and offers the solution “each man is to have his own wife and likewise also the wife to her husband”.  There are several observations that can be noted.

First, each man is to be devoted to the one woman he has entered into covenant with and not another wife.  Second, that being the case, the singular term “wife” not wives, supports monogamy, not polygamy. Third, this is a safeguard for those longing to sexually express themselves within the context of a one flesh union between a man and a woman.  Fourth, this contradicts the in-vogue notion of “same-sex marriage” that many in Western civilization have embraced.  Fifth, the same holds true for women.  Sixth, both male and female have a bent to immorality, both are culpable before Gods’ court of justice, and both are graciously given a solution—marriage.  Now in this covenant relationship there are duties given for flourishing to obtain.

Third, duties obtain for both man and woman.  Paul continues his thought and describes the duties both husband and wife are to fulfill toward each another.  When Paul says; v-3 “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband” he makes abundantly clear that they equally share the responsibility to make the marriage union flourish.

First, Paul grounds his command of duty/fulfillment on the idea and reality that “authority” over the other’s body is a non-negotiable.  What does authority here mean?  On the surface, biblically when one has authority over another they possess the power to command persons (and affect them) to live a certain way, to do certain things.  This attribute of authority again is grounded in God’s being—one way image bearers express the Creators presence, objective reality and His existence.

Second, Paul is sounding the alarm when he states in v-4:  “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” 

The alarm here is that both husband and wife belong to each other, they are distinct persons, but have a one flesh union which forever changes how they are to live.  It seems clear that they are not “free” to make autonomous sexual decisions, but instead are to always submit to the desires of each other within God’s design for sexuality (which clearly exclude bestiality, homosexuality, heterosexual adultery, etc.), but not as clearly when it deals with oral copulation.

When we consider a text that does not give us specifics (e.g., Paul here does not specify what I brought up), a wise approach to get at the meaning of a biblical text, is to consider the entirety of what Scripture teaches (on a given topic) deal first with the clearest texts and then proceed to the more obscure texts.  By this approach, the obscurity, while not completely removed, does have more light shed on it by the clearer passages in scripture.  After Paul describes both duties and authority, he commands both husband and wife to obey.

Fourth, husbands and wives are commanded to stop sinning against each other.  Paul gives a prohibition because then like today, husbands and wives were sinning against each other by depriving each other of sexual intimacy v-5; “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

To deprive means to withhold something good possessed by one for the benefit of another—the covenant spouse here.  That is, if one spouse desires sexual relations the other is to concede.  Only by mutual agreement is the married couple to withhold sexual relations.

This opens up a “can of worms” that’s filled with pain, manipulation, and abuse which reveals our brokenness as people.  Nevertheless, we must understand that what fuels this command is love for God and Christ Jesus (though imperfectly expressed) in the marriage union between a man and a woman.

Men often don’t walk in a loving manner toward their wives and wives accordingly to their husbands.  The reason for such turmoil is the real distinctions between men and women.  The lack of appreciation and understanding of these distinctions has from Adam and Eve unto today been a real problem.   That is, according to God’s design, a man’s greatest need is to be respected, while a woman’s supreme need is to be loved.  And while the needs are distinct, both spouses are commanded to honor one another.

The prohibition to “stop depriving one another” means that if that’s presently the case, it is to cease in the present.  Yet, if mutual consent to withhold obtains, it’s for a very practical purpose; “so that you may devote yourselves to prayer”.  Could it be that Paul is commanding the spouses to entreat God with the same passion with which they sexually pleasure each other?  I don’t see why not, but this activity of intimacy between spouse and God has a “time” or “duration” of activity not specified.

There’s a time for everything under heaven Solomon wrote and here Paul is saying to married couples, “there’s a time for sex and a time to refrain in order to pray”.  Whatever the duration here, the key is that there’s agreement.  So, there’s a time for sex and a time for prayer, but he does not end it there.

Paul finishes the command and provides the reason for it: “and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”.  Both spouses are addressed because when marriages fail and adultery occurs there’s usually culpability from both parties.  Paul is alluding to the practical need for sexual relations to continue when he says, “come together again” for the purpose of denuding satanic temptation to commit adultery.

The reason for the command is because there’s a lack of self-control, thus the loving act for the spouses to do is to sexually fulfill each other (however imperfectly it may be done).  Obedience here is the path of holiness to the LORD which is our highest good and joy.

These verses unfold the gravity of marriage and their reflection of God’s love and care for His people.  Elsewhere Paul explains that marriage is the mystery unveiled of Christ and His union with the Church (Eph.5).

We live in a time where “sexual liberation” is lauded in a way that actually dishonors God and thus dishonors human beings.  Sexuality expressed according to God’s design is magnificent, when it goes awry, while for a time may be exhilarating, will in the end be another means for human destruction.  God have mercy on our souls and bodies.

(SDG)

Reflection From 1 Corinthians 7: PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS ON MARRIAGE & SINGLENESS AS EXPRESSIONS OF LOVE FOR CHRIST

1-corinthians 

            Paul continues his instruction to the called saints who are in the world but not of it.  In chapter 5 the apostle tackles the issue of immorality caused by the Corinthians’ pride and warns of God’s looming judgment as the impetus for repentance.

In chapter 6 Paul continues to address the believers’ immorality and resultant ineptness to wisely judge among themselves when being defrauded by another professing Christian.  He then points to Christ’s atonement as the basis for believers to humble themselves before God and each other.  It’s humility that safeguards God’s people from sexual immorality which is for their, not harm.

In chapter 7 Paul addresses the aspects of marriage, singleness, divorce, separation and remarriage.  These were massive issues then as they are today.  These issues are emotionally charged, often difficult to grapple with, because what can be a joyous relationship too often becomes a miserable existence for image bearers.  Our brokenness has not served us well.

The sexual tension that both married and single experience has not changed and the views in said realities either reflect Gods’ design or rejects it.    Since this letter is for believers and how they are to conduct their lives before the consummation, it’s critical to heed Paul’s teaching (Christ’s authoritative spokesman), and if non-believers mock and contradict what Scripture teaches, God will deal with them.

In the church the sexual confusion over male/female distinctions has adversely impacted our marriages resulting in the divorce of many couples.  Much of this is because God’s people make a habit of ignoring their inheritance—the Word of life, the Scriptures, which bring light to our darkened minds and restoration to our broken dispositions.   Too often (in the name of love) believers unwittingly imbibe a Godless worldview in order to be “relevant” to the culture.  Ironically, the Christian is most relevant when the word of life is spoken and practiced before the watching world not ignored.

In what follows, Paul is going to challenge 21st century believers with what it means to be loving, what it means to be salt and light, what it means to be presently relevant by lauding God’s truth not lies (because we love Christ) in the context of our most cherished relationships.

(SDG)

Considering a Few Who Have Shaped the Church’s Thought: PATRISTIC & MEDIEVAL PERIOD / REFORMATION & MODERN PERIOD

Theological Book Summaries

The writer to the Hebrews wrote: “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith” Hebrews 13:7. Too often Christians find themselves imitating the faith of those who actually do not speak the word of God to them in truth. Instead, they listen to teachers who proclaim what their itching ears want to hear to their utter destruction. One way to guard against that is to consider how believers through the centuries understood the Gospel, and treasured Christ as they lived out its implications.

There are two cautions, two extremes, I think are critical to consider if we are to love God with our minds and hearts. First, we must guard against thinking that because something is old (pick a number) it’s irrelevant in the present and for our future. Second, we must guard against thinking that because something is new it’s relevant for the present and future. Both extremes are foolish, irrational, clothed in hubris and blind us from discovering objective truth in order to live it out presently and in the future.

The following summaries are provided to encourage, challenge, comfort and invigorate the follower of Christ to consider how in the last two millennia followers of Christ understood and lived out the implications of their faith. It’s to consider how these believers spent their energies for the glory of God and the cause of the kingdom, and to see where their example is worthy to be emulated.

Some things will seem odd, some things odious, some things onerous, and some things endearing. I trust in no way you will be bored. These summaries are but a taste of their substance that I’ve attempted to capture so that you, the reader will take up and read at the source.  Click the link Theological Book Summaries to download the entire summaries.

(Soli Deo Gloria)

 

 

Reformation/ Modern Period_Summary on John Wesley’s: Christian Perfection

Young-John-Wesley-pix

Wesley: Christian Perfection[1]

In his Christian Perfection, Wesley distinguishes between how Christians are and are not perfect.

How Are Christians Not Perfect? 

Both from experience and the Scriptures it is clear Christians are not perfect in knowledge e.g., our ignorance in God’s workings in different dispensations.  Christians are not perfect in their mistakes (e.g., “we know in part” 1 Cor. 13:12) at handling the Scriptures.  Christians are not free from infirmities (e.g., physical ailments or moral failures).  Moreover, Christians are not free from temptation, such freedom lies ahead in the next life.  Christian perfection is another term for holiness.  Hence, to be perfect one must be holy and the converse obtains.

How Are Christians Perfect?

First, developmentally babes and mature Christians are in different stages, yet perfection applies to both.  Scripture clearly says that those who are justified (be it babe or mature) “do not continue in sin” (Rom. 6:1, 5-7, 14, 18) i.e., all real Christians are free from external sin (1 Pet. 4:1-2; 1 Jn. 3:8-9; 5:18).  Wesley then argues for misinterpreted counter examples from the lives of David, Abraham, even the Proverbs.  Wesley concludes with those opposing the “plain” reading of NT texts, that they need to buttress their arguments and give proofs form the NT clear teaching, rather than an OT vague passage.

Wesley understands that to use arguments that a Christian must sin is unacceptable, for no necessity of sinning obtains for the Christian.  The same grace that was sufficient for Paul is also at our disposal.  Hence, although temptation comes, one is not required to yield to it (1 Cor. 10:13).  Moreover, Wesley addresses the misuse of passages (2 Cor. 12:7-10) that are often used to buttress the above contention that we must sin and challenges such notions with James understanding of faith and works (Jam. 3:2).               

[1] John Wesley, Sermon Forty, Christian Perfection, Edited by Dave Sparks, (1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology, web site: webadmin@wesley.nnu.edu for permission or to report errors)

Summary of CHAPTER 4: THE IMPROBABLE WORLD (Pgs. 56-70)

maxresdefault

CHAPTER 4: THE IMPROBABLE WORLD (Pgs.56-70)     

            In this chapter Postman points out that Technopoly has a vigorous ally called “social science”.   He uses a thought experiment to demonstrate that Americans will believe most anything that is preceded by “Studies show…” regardless of how ridiculous it may be.  This is done by stating a prestigious university, stating a study that “doctor so and so conducted” and the rest is assumed to be credible.

Like those in the Middle Ages who believed in the authority of their religion, Postman holds that twentieth century people believe in the authority of their science, no matter what.  The reason for this is that the world in which we live is for most of us incomprehensible and thus any new facts presented are uncritically accepted.  The reason for this is Americans have no unifying worldview from which to access logically truth from error, contradictions from realities.

The Scaffolding of the Old World Replaced by the Framework of Progress

The theological scaffolding that buttressed the belief system of so many and gave it a unifying Christian worldview—meaning to life, was supplanted in the Middle Ages by the instruments of Progress who replaced the theological with the scientific and technological with reliable information about nature and thus end ignorance and superstition.  These technocracies delivered real progress in pharmacology, sanitation, transportation, and communication.  These events were fueled by information—which became the god of culture reinterpreting the structure of nature and the human soul.

Information Glut

Like today, so it was back then that the flood of information was viewed as a friend, not a foe.  It was uncritically viewed as the key to solve human pain and suffering and yet the human plight really was not solved.  That is, very few personal and social political problems result from the lack of information.  Yet, information is what the progressive “Technopolist” affirms to be the “savior” of humanity.  But information “glut” as Postman puts it, does not aid us to reflect on the pros and cons of what’s ahead.  Information does not equal knowledge, knowledge does not equal wisdom and reflection is what’s required to distinguish these human realities.

The origins of information glut did not begin with the age of computers but with Gutenberg‘s old wine press which he converted into a printing machine with movable type.  Postman writes, “Fifty years after the press was invented, more than eight million books had been printed, almost all of them filled with information that had previously been unavailable to the average person…” Subjects like law, agriculture, politics, botany, linguistics, pediatrics, and more were available in book form.

In order to control the flow of said information schools became increasingly the bureaucratic structure for legitimizing certain flows of information and discrediting other aspects of it.  This impacted the areas of science, theology, philosophy and politics where the masses had access to knowledge that was historically unprecedented.

Whether the printed page came from Martin Luther (which spawned the Protestant Reformation), or it came from the likes of Kant and Hume (which sped up the “age of reason”), or it came from Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (which caused the birth of a nation), no one can question its’ seismic effects on human history.

Moreover, when the printed page (through Newspapers) and the telegraph (with its Morse code) were combined, it removed space from the equation of getting information to the masses, converted it into a commodity (something to be bought and sold regardless of the usefulness or meaning) which resulted in the idea of context-less information.  Here, the fortunes accumulated by newspapers did not depend on the quality or utility of the information, but rather on the quantity and speed of getting it to the masses.

Again, the telegraph and printed page served to prepare people for the photographic revolution where a picture was worth a thousand words, and language was supplemented by new imagery as the dominant means for understanding and testing reality.

These three modes of information—the telegraph, the printed page and the photo) spawned a new definition of information, Postman writes:

“Here was information that rejected the necessity of inter-connectedness, proceeded without context, argued for instancy against historical continuity, and offered fascination in place of complexity and coherence” (pg.69).

These three stages in the information revolution were followed by broadcasting and fifth by computer technology.  Each communicated new forms of information, never before amounts of it imagined, and it increased the speed at which the information was distributed.

What does this mean?

So much information from so many angles through the above mentioned means around the globe (e.g., books, radio, television, advertisements, computer chips, etc.) finds its way into our homes.  Postman among other things concludes that:

“Like the Sorcerer’s apprentice, we are awash in information.  And all the sorcerer has left us is a broom.  Information has become a source of garbage, not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems…We proceed under the assumption that information is our friend…(without realizing it can also be our foe)” (Pg69-70)

The setting under which Technopoly flourishes is between information and human purpose; here information appears without discretion with no particular audience in mind and is disconnected from theory, meaning, or any design.

Selected Book Summaries From the REFORMATION & MODERN PERIOD: John Bunyan”Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners”

John_Bunyan_by_Thomas_Sadler_1684

Bunyan: Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners[1]

In Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, during his incarceration, Bunyan writes a spiritual autobiography, where his conversion to Christ is contrasted from his former idolatry.  The son of a traveling blacksmith, Bunyan in 1653 was incarcerated for 11 years because he refused to refrain from preaching.

He starts his autobiography by explaining the former darkness that bound him (Eph. 2: 2, 3) such that a sinful lifestyle became second nature to him.  Yet, thoughts of coming judgment and hell tormented Bunyan around nine or ten years of age.  However, until he married, all manner of vice drowned out the aforesaid fears as he gave himself over to satisfy his every lust.

Experiencing Guilt Yet Not Converted

Bunyan was much vexed with guilt after hearing a sermon on keeping the Sabbath, and in a mystical experience, he heard a voice (supposedly from Christ) challenging him to leave sin for heaven or embrace hell for sin, despair gripped Bunyan, believing that he was beyond Christ’s forgiveness.  After this experience, Bunyan noticed that his speech went from swearing to leaving that pleasantly behind (this happened before he knew Christ).  Yet, while experiencing some outward manifestations of reform, Bunyan was not converted.  He had religion, but without Christ, he was outwardly righteous, but inwardly wicked.  He was pleased with his own righteousness, while ignorant of Christ’s righteousness.  That is, until it was initially revealed to him through women conversing about the new birth and as Bunyan read the Scriptures, his thirst to truly know God grew.

The Gift of Faith

As Bunyan read (1 Cor. 12: 8, 9) regarding the gift of faith, he wondered if he could receive it, moreover, if he actually had it, but simultaneously was puzzled as how to verify whether or not he had faith.  He then wondered how he could know if he was elect which tormented Bunyan, for he understood Romans 9: 16 to say that one’s election is grounded not on one’s desires, nor on one’s willingness, but on God’s mercy.  Hence, unless God elected him, he knew that hell awaited.  The Tempter tormented Bunyan much with this issue, discouraging his soul deeply, but eventually God’s sweet mercy and calling became real to him (Mk. 3:13).  In his soul, Bunyan understood Romans 8:39 and assured him of God’s love for him.

Struggling with Christ’s Exclusivity

He then had to deal with doubts about Jesus being the only Savior, for the Turks also have their scriptures and their savior is Mahomet.  Yet, something within his spirit allowed Bunyan not to doubt Jesus and the Scriptures he had.  But he still had many bouts with doubt, which caused Bunyan much unrest.  Yet scriptures such as (2 Cor. 5:21; John 14:19; Rom. 8:31; Heb. 2: 14-15) comforted him regarding salvation and the rescue from death, all of which are grounded on God’s goodness toward his creatures.

Called to Ministry

Now concerning his call to ministry, Bunyan offers a brief account explaining among other things how his peers recognized God’s hand on him and gladly desired to hear him preach.  After fasting and prayer, he was appointed to a more ordinary and public ministry of preaching.  Bunyan understood that God desired men with gifts to use them for the Masters glory, rather than bury them.   The following Scriptures encouraged him to labor diligently in the ministry of the word (Acts 8: 4; 18:24-25; 1 Pet. 4:10; Rom. 12:6) and also those of church history (Foxes Acts and Mounments).

Moved for the People

When he preached, Bunyan was moved for the people, as they were confronted with the gravity of their sin before a holy God.  In touch with his own wretchedness, Bunyan was amazed and humbled that the people loved him, and that God was using him for preaching the word.

Mode of Preaching

His mode of preaching focused first on the problem of sin in mans’ hearts, and the terror that awaits the ungodly.  Having been under the torment of such a reality himself, Bunyan understood his duty to warn people of God’s coming judgment and Christ’s rescue.  While he received opposition from the doctors and the priests, Bunyan did not shrink back from proclaiming the gospel.  He was not a polemical preacher, but focused primarily on the redemption that is only found in Christ.

Bunyan sensed God’s leading before he embarked going to any particular place.  Moreover, he also understood that where God lead him, the Devil would meet him trying to oppose the work of the gospel.  He desired to go into the darkest places spiritually speaking and preach the gospel among those who had not heard it, interceding much for them.

[1] Bunyan, Graces Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, Dr. Alan Gomes, Spring 2002 Biola University, Reformation & Modern Theology Selected Readings, CD ROM Pp. 1-58).

 

Selected Book Summaries From the REFORMATION & MODERN PERIOD: Arminius Declaration of Sentiments

220px-James_Arminius_2

Arminius Declaration of Sentiments[1]

In his Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius deals with the doctrine’s of predestination, Divine Providence, the freedom of the will, God’s grace, Christ’s deity, and man’s justification before God.

Many Facets to Predestination Obtain

The bulk of his treatise deals with the many facets of predestination, holding that Calvin’s view on many points is false and impertinent.  Arminius rejects the notions that the decree of God is the foundation of Christianity, salvation, and one’s certainty.  For predestination is not the foundation of the Gospel, Christ is through whom believers are built up into Him.  It’s neither the grounds for salvation, nor it’s certainty, for only those who believe shall be saved.   Arminius sees that the Gospel of Christ and of the Apostles after the ascension is one of repentance and belief, followed by a promise to forgive sins and realizing eternal life. But predestination belongs to neither of these injunctions and is not necessary for a doctrine of salvation; as an object of knowledge, belief, hope, or performance.

The Councils and Divines of the Church Never Held This Predestination View

Arminius continues and points to the early Councils[2] and to the Divines/Doctors of the church, while holding orthodox views, and defending God’s grace against Pelagius, never brought this doctrine forward or approved it.  Moreover, this doctrine is not found in the volume of Geneva[3] and is debatable in others.[4]  And as such, more tolerance of those opposing Calvin’s view should obtain.

Calvin’s Predestination View is Repugnant in View of God’s Nature

Arminius found the doctrine repugnant in view of God’s nature.  It is repugnant concerning God’s wisdom seeing Him decreeing something that is not good nor can be. Concerning His justice it counts against God loving righteousness and hating evil.  And concerning His goodness, it’s repugnant showing God to will the greatest evil.

Again, Arminius understands this doctrine to be contrary to man’s nature, for being created in God’s image with free will, certain commands to obedience cannot be excited in man if he can choose no other alternative (Rom. 10: 5; Gen. 2: 17).  Along the same lines, Arminius sees that determining man’s actions is inconsistent with creation by preventing the free exercise of liberty.  This predestination is totally opposed to the Act of Creation, for that which is by nature good, turns out to be a the determined perdition of the creature.  Reprobation is an act of hatred (Mt.26: 24) creation is the converse.  Creation is a perfect act of God whereby His goodness, wisdom and omnipotence are manifest.

Calvin’s Predestination View is Hostile to the Nature of Eternal Life

This predestination is both hostile to the nature of eternal life (Mt. 5:12; Tit. 3:7; Jn. 1:12), and to the nature of eternal death (Rom. 6:23).  It’s further inconsistent with the nature of Divine Grace because it denies that: grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51); that man can receive or reject it; and that man cannot freely exercise his will.

There are many more disagreements to Calvin’s views that Arminius expresses such as; this doctrine is hurtful to man’s salvation, it’s dishonorable to Jesus Christ, it’s openly hostile to the Gospel’s ministry, it’s subversive to Christianity in particular (dealing with supralapsarianism), etc.  Arminius then deals with a second and third kind of predestination and then positively affirms his position on the doctrine.

God’s Providence Generally and Specifically

He then deals with God’s Providence seeing in it the general care of God for the whole world and particular care for His intelligent creatures and of those who should be heirs of salvation.  For Arminius, his view of providence does not attribute see God as the cause of sin.  Concerning man’s free will, only the regenerate can perform what is truly good since they are delivered from sin’s power.  Concerning God’s grace, Arminius held men could reject it.  Concerning the perseverance of the saints, they can resist Satan and persevere to the end only through the Holy Spirit’s power.  However, certain passages seem to say that one can fall away from the faith, but many other passages buttress the contrary.  Concerning the assurance of salvation, Arminius holds that one can know with certainty that they are saved, but not with the same certainty that we know God exists.

Arminius then concludes with the believer’s perfection, Christ’s divinity, man’s justification before God and ends his treatise with a plea for toleration from those differing with him, for Christianity has had enough schisms.  Said schisms should be diminished and their influence ought to be destroyed.

[1] Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, Dr. Alan Gomes, Spring 2002 Biola University, Reformation & Modern Theology Selected Readings, CD ROM Pp. 1-36).

[2]  The first six centuries after Christ.

[3]  Which is done in the name of the Protestant and Reformed Churches

[4]  The Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism

Selected Book Summaries From the REFORMATION & MODERN PERIOD: Trent on Justification (Discussion) & (Canons)

TrentoConcilio

Trent, On Justification (Discussion)[1]

Pope Paul the III presided over the Council of Trent, which focused on clarifying the significance of Justification.  They understand that man in his state of original sin is incapable of self-rescue.  Said rescue can only be realized through faith in Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice as one appropriates the benefit of his death personally.  This justification is derived from God’s prevenient grace, which one can reject.

The justification of the impious has God as the final cause, God’s mercy as the efficient cause, Jesus Christ as the meritorious cause, the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause, and Gods justice as the alone formal cause.  We are freely justified by faith.  It’s the genesis of human salvation.  However, if one demonstrates confidence in that their sins are forgiven, they are not.  For nobody can have such certainty of faith or of perseverance.

Moreover, justification is realized not forensically, but dualistically as faith and good works manifest in a believer.  Furthermore, it is necessary and possible to keep the commandments, for works of righteousness are the means to realize final salvation.  If one falls away from justification, he can again be justified through the Sacraments of penance, confession of sins, sacerdotal absolution, fasts, alms, etc.  And finally, the ultimate fruit of justification is merited eternal life.   

Trent, On Justification (Canons)[2]

The Canons lay out a plethora of anathemas to those in disagreement with Trent’s views.  Such anathemas include those holding: that man’s image in Adam’s was erased, rather than effaced; that God is the cause of evil in man; that justification is by faith alone; that men are just without Christ’s righteousness; that by faith alone absolution and justification are realized; that perseverance is certain, unless divinely revealed; that Jesus is the Savior but does not need to be obeyed; that one cannot lose their salvation; seeing good works as fruit of being justified, rather than the grounds thereof, etc.

[1] Document retrieved through Hanover College, History Department,  Comments to: luttmer@hanover.edu

[2] Ibid.