Sufficient and Profitable (7)
Sometimes people try to sound clever. Referring to what he considered an astonishing teaching, one preacher said, "If Jesus hadn't said it, I wouldn't have believed it!" He probably did not realize the implication of what he said, but the meaning was that if the same teaching was asserted only by the prophets and the apostles, he would have declared it false. This would imply that he did not believe in the inspiration of Scripture at all, at least everything that is not in red. Non-inspired writings can be sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but for a piece of writing to be inspired means that it is always and completely right.
When discussing the topic of divine revelation, even evangelical scholars have said, "The prophets and apostles were inspired by God, and they spoke by the Spirit, but Jesus was God himself." The point is true in itself, but again, to even bring up this point here betrays a tendency to think of the words of Jesus in the Bible as superior to the rest of the Bible, which amounts to a denial of biblical inspiration, that all Scripture is breathed out by God.6
This implicit denial of biblical inspiration is in fact present in more people than one would assume, and this might hinder some people from understanding my concern. What could be wrong with giving special honor to the words of Christ? It might seem to them that I am bringing down Jesus to the level of the prophets and the apostles. One who thus misconstrues what I am saying still misses the point.
If all Scripture is God-breathed, then all the writings of the prophets and the apostles already carry maximum authority, and the words of Jesus cannot be more authoritative because there is no room for anything higher – every part of Scripture carries the very authority of God. In fact, if every part of Scripture is revealed by God, then every part of Scripture is also in this sense the words of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. And the word of God spoken through the human body of Jesus cannot be superior than the word of God spoken through David or Paul. If an "inspired" document is a "God-breathed" document, then there cannot be degrees of inspiration, but something must either be inspired or not inspired, and if inspired, then it is the very word of God.
Notes
6 Hebrews 1:1-2 says, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." The emphasis here is that God spoke to us, only that he did it through the superior person of Christ, and not that the words of Christ were somehow more inspired. If the prophets spoke from God, then nothing could be more inspired. Also, our topic is the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but this is not what this passage from Hebrews is addressing. Nothing in the passage indicates that Christ's words were more true or inspired than the prophets, or that the words of the prophets in Scripture had anything less than the authority of God.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (6)
Now we have arrived at the point that I would like to make. That is, given that the whole Bible is breathed out by God – all from a single divine source – there is no reason to regard one part of the Bible as more authoritative than another, or to regard one inspired person speaking in Scripture as more inspired by another.
Indeed, if by inspiration we mean God-breathed, then a text is either inspired or not inspired, and inspired texts are equally God-breathed. Thus Moses is not more reliable than Jeremiah, or David more authoritative than Malachi. God is the source of every part of Scripture, and not Moses, Jeremiah, David, or Malachi. Therefore, there is no difference in the reliability and authority between the various biblical books and their writers.
Here I have in mind the "red-letter Bible" mentality. Some people treat the words of Jesus as if they form a Bible within the Bible, or as if they are especially reliable and authoritative. If they are conscious of doing this at all, they might assume that this is right and good, and that it represents an attitude of special reverence for our Lord. However, given the Bible's own teaching that "All Scripture is God-breathed," to especially honor the words of Jesus is in fact an implicit denial of the inspiration of Scripture.
Probably more than a few people would find this assertion disturbing. Someone might say, "Is he denying that Jesus is greater than the prophets and the apostles? But Jesus is God, not a mere man. He is greater than Abraham and Solomon, and even David called him Lord." It is true that Jesus is greater than all men, but to even raise this point in this context is to betray a tendency toward the error that I am talking about.
In affirming the inspiration of Scripture, there is no place to compare the merits of the individual speakers and writers, since the doctrine of inspiration is that "All Scripture is God-breathed," that is, the whole Bible comes from God. In other words, when we are comparing the words of Jesus to the words of Paul, the fact that Jesus is infinitely greater than Paul is irrelevant. All Scripture is God-breathed, so that unless we deny the inspiration of either Jesus or Paul, we are comparing the words of God with the words of God, so that there is zero difference in inspiration and authority. If the words of Paul in the Bible are less authoritative than the words of Jesus, then they are not inspired at all – they are not God-breathed.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (5)
By "All Scripture," it is certain that Paul is referring to at least the Old Testament, since as a Jew, that was his "Scripture." Also, he has just mentioned "the holy Scriptures" that were taught to Timothy by his Jewish mother and grandmother, which likewise would have been at least the Old Testament. The question is whether he has in mind the New Testament also, or from another perspective, whether what he is saying about "All Scripture" can be directly applied to the New Testament in particular.
Here we will again recall that the inspiration of Scripture, and now the New Testament in particular, does not depend on this verse alone. Jesus says that he would send the apostles the Spirit of truth, who would then guide them into all truth (John 16:13). And Peter writes that ignorant and unstable people distort the letters of Paul, "as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). The necessary implication is that Paul's letters were already considered as part of the Scriptures. That is, he says that these people distort Paul's letters, which are Scriptures, as they do the other Scriptures.
As for Paul, he was aware that the very words he spoke were "taught by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:13), and not just the general ideas. He introduces himself as an apostle, foreordained and called to be such by God and the Lord Jesus. And he repeatedly defends his identity and authority as an apostle in his writings. He tells the Corinthians to "acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command" (1 Corinthians 14:37). Then, in 1 Timothy 5:18, he prefaces both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 with the expression, "the Scripture says," effectively calling the Gospel of Luke "Scripture" and ascribing to it the same divine inspiration and authority of Deuteronomy.
It is therefore unreasonable to assume that Paul must refer to only the Old Testament when he says "All Scripture." As Robert Reymond writes, Paul would have been willing to include, and "almost certainly did include, within the technical category of 'all Scripture' the New Testament documents, including his own, as well."5 Since the New Testament documents are regarded as inspired and even called "Scripture," we may with complete certainty regard them as "God-breathed." Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are "Scripture," and they make up one book that is our Bible. Therefore, there is no problem in regarding the verse as asserting, "The whole Bible is God-breathed." In fact, there is no excuse in thinking otherwise.
Notes
5 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 34.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (4)
Paul writes that "All Scripture is God-breathed." There is some debate about the correct translation for "All Scripture." Of course, we should always strive for the most precise rendering, but the dangers of other translations for the phrase have sometimes been exaggerated. Whether we translate it "all Scripture" or "every Scripture" makes no essential difference – the former declares the whole of Scripture inspired, and the latter declares every part of Scripture inspired. Either way, all of Scripture and every part of it is God-breathed.
It is true that translations such as "every scripture inspired of God is also profitable" and "all inspired Scripture has its use" greatly weaken the verse, since they seem to allow the possibility that at least some parts of the Bible are not inspired. To translate "whatever is Scripture" similarly cripples the verse as a clear text in support of the plenary inspiration of the Bible.
Even with these potential problems, none of these translations actually contradict the divine inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, although the problem is serious, the actual danger is limited. Then, considering the fact that the doctrine of inspiration does not depend on this verse alone, but is attested by a mountain of biblical passages, we must not think that the very truth of inspiration stands or falls on the precise translation of this verse.
Still, some options are better than others, and some attempts are outright distortions. We can offer grammatical arguments showing that "All Scripture" (NIV, ESV) is the most accurate, and we already noted that even to translate "Every Scripture" would not undermine divine inspiration at all.
Although the other options do not contradict inspiration or make it impossible, they should not be considered serious contenders. This is true if for no other reason than that, given the historical and cultural context, and more reliably the Bible's internal evidence, it is impossible for Paul to have in mind the weaker meanings. In fact, the main thrust of the verse is not even to assert the divine inspiration of Scripture, as if Timothy needed to be convinced; rather, Paul merely states the assumption to introduce his subsequent comments and admonitions.
We will not spend any more time on this, since as noted, inspiration is not in danger, and this is sufficient for the point that I am about to make. But there is one more step to take before that.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (3)
Because the word theopneustos means "breathed out by God," there is a legitimate objection against translating it as "inspiration." The word "inspiration" comes from the Latin and is used in the Vulgate, and even in the English has the meaning of breathing in – the opposite of what is conveyed by theopneustos.
The danger is in supposing from this translation that Scripture is a merely human product into which God has breathed in his spirit, or that God merely exerted his influence in the writing process while the product remained essentially and primarily human in origin. On the other hand, the translation "breathed out by God" would hardly allow such a misunderstanding.
The objection is technically correct; however, the misunderstanding does not appear likely or common. Under "inspiration," the idea of "divine influence"4 appears as the first definition in Merriam-Webster, but the fifth in Webster's New World. But even with the latter, the danger that someone would apply the first four definitions before considering the fifth is minimal, for the fifth definition is clearly designated as "Theol." – that is, theological – so that it ought to be the first one considered in such a context.
Due to usage and common understanding, the English word "inspiration" has long become a broad theological term for what the Scripture actually teaches about its own origin, that it is "God-breathed," and thus also infallible, inerrant, and carries absolute authority. For this reason, I would not oppose using the word "inspiration" here in verse 16 because of the possible misunderstanding, since the theological meaning is generally recognized.
However, I would oppose such a translation for the simple reason that it is not truly a translation, but a (correct) theological inference or interpretation of what the verse asserts. That is, even if we agree that the word does not mean "breath in" when used in the theological sense, but broadly refers to what the Scripture teaches about its own divine origin, it is still not what is stated here in this verse. Rather, the verse says that Scripture is "God-breathed," and it is from this and other relevant passages that we derive the doctrine of divine inspiration.
Notes
4 Of course, to speak of Scripture as a product of "divine influence" is much too weak, unless it is clear that this "influence" is absolute and exhaustive. However, right now the question is not whether the dictionaries provide a precise definition of the biblical doctrine, but whether the word "inspiration" must mean "breathing in," or whether it is easily construed as such in a theological context.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (2)
1. AUTHORITY
Verse 16 asserts the divine inspiration of Scripture, and although it is mentioned as if in passing to introduce another thought, it is nevertheless foundational to the whole purpose of the passage. Without the inspiration of Scripture, the rest would be empty and futile.
We shall begin, then, by considering the meaning of divine inspiration, and how it renders the Scripture sufficient and profitable.
a. Breathed Out by God
Although we are accustomed to affirming the "inspiration" (KJV) of Scripture, the compound word theopneustos literally means "God-breathed" (NIV), and since the ending -tos indicates a passive meaning, an even more precise translation would be "breathed out by God" (ESV).
The implication is tremendous. Scripture does not contain mere human opinion or even the human interpretation of divine revelation, but it came "right out" of God, so to speak, and thus there is no difference between what Scripture says and what God thinks or what God says. The Scripture is what God thinks and what God says.
This being the case, there is no difference between the authority of God and the authority of Scripture. To understand Scripture is to understand the mind and the will of God, and to disobey Scripture is to disobey him. Just as one who stands before God cannot say, "I will obey you, but I will not obey what you say" – since to obey or disobey one is to obey or disobey the other – no one can say, "I will obey God, but not the Bible," for there is no difference.
Some would ridicule us as following a "paper pope," but I would much prefer the seemingly greater insult of following a "paper God," since only then would the insult correspond to the position actually espoused. The answer is that we are not following a paper pope or God, but we are following God, since again, there is zero difference between obeying the Bible and obeying God. Thus the "paper pope" insult is not nearly strong enough. In fact, according to God's sovereign arrangement, to obey the Bible is the only way to obey God. Let our opponents, then, insult us for obeying God, and in doing so condemn their own defiance.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (1)
2 TIMOTHY 3:14-17
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter in 2 Timothy begins with Paul's warning: "There will be terrible times in the last days." He proceeds to describe "men of depraved minds" who would "oppose the truth" (v. 8), "evil men" who would "go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (v. 13), and those who would "turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (4:4).
On the other hand, Paul declares that Timothy should and could be different from these evil people, emphasizing the contrast with three instances of "but you" (3:10, 14, 4:5). To paraphrase, Paul says:
Timothy, trouble is coming. There will be evil people – selfish, treacherous, unholy. They will have a form of godliness but deny its power. They will be always learning but never acknowledge the truth (v. 1-9). But you, Timothy, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, and my character (v. 10-11).
These people are imposters, and they will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves (v. 13). But you, Timothy, continue in what you have learned and believed since the beginning, even as your mother and grandmother taught you the sacred Scriptures while you were still an infant (v. 14-15).
These people will not endure sound doctrine. They will gather around themselves teachers who will only say things that they want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and turn to myths and fables instead (4:3-4). But you, Timothy, even when the times are unfavorable, you must endure hardship, preach the word, and fulfill your ministry (4:5).
These three "but you" instances are more or less obscured by some translations, but are given greater attention in others, such as the NKJ, NCV, GNT, REB, and HCSB. Wuest and Lattimore translate all three instances as "but as for you," which is good. The NLT translates all three instances as "but you," and even begins a new paragraph each time.
An adequate translation should show that Paul is making sharp, consistent, and repeated contrasts between the "man of God"2 and the men of evil. Jay Adams translates the three instances as "you, in contrast," "you, however," and "but you." This reflects the meaning and even the contrast that Paul tries to make, but it obscures his consistent language. Thus I would suggest that all three instances should be rendered either "but you" or "but as for you."3
Our passage begins with the second instance of "but you." The contrast is made against "evil men and imposters" who will "go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (v. 13). Paul wants Timothy to be different from these people, but to continue in what he has learned and believed. And what he has learned and believed is Scripture.
Thus we will discuss the authority, sufficiency, and utility of Scripture, these being the attributes emphasized in the passage.
Since verse 16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed," one might think that our emphasis should be "inspiration" instead of authority. Inspiration is certainly in view, but it is mentioned here to provide the foundation for something else, and thus "authority" is appropriate.
The idea of sufficiency is prominent in verse 17. It also broadly represents one emphasis of the passage. Scripture is the sufficient answer against the situations and evil people that Timothy must face, and one who stands firm on sound doctrine is also one who stands in sharp contrast against those who "go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."
The utility of Scripture is closely related to its sufficiency in our passage. Paul says that Scripture is "useful" or "profitable." It is not only effective, but also adaptable – not that its standard and meaning are flexible, but that its truth can be applied with several different methods with complete rigidity in content but perfect relevance at the same time. Thus we will consider its modes and spheres of application. For this, we will not limit ourselves this passage, but will take its surrounding verses and even the whole Bible into account.
Notes
1 An earlier work, Preach the Word, deals with the passage that follows (2 Timothy 4:1-3). The present piece, then, can be considered a prequel. We will be discussing the authority, sufficiency, and utility of Scripture — Preach the Word considers the principles of preaching and education, and thus extends and overlaps with the final section. Nevertheless, there will be no deliberate attempt to connect one article with the other.
2 See verse 17, but also 1 Timothy 6:10-11: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. "
3 "You, however" and "you, in contrast" are in fact fine translations. The point is that all three instances should be translated the same way.
(to be continued)
Sufficient and Profitable (0)
For the next series, I will be writing on 2 Timothy 3:14-17, and I hope to begin posting by Monday or Tuesday.
Here is the plan:
Text: 2 Timothy 3:14-17
Title: Sufficient and Profitable
Subtitle: The Authority, Sufficiency, and Utility of Scripture
Outline:
Introduction
1. Authority
a. Breathed Out by God
b. Carried by the Spirit2. Sufficiency
a. Sufficient for What?
b. Sufficient for Whom?3. Utility
a. Modes of Application
b. Spheres of Application
A Soft Answer
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1)
I had planned to write a short article on Proverbs 15:1 after finishing "As a Man Thinks," but now I think that I should not touch Proverbs for a while, since I might end up writing too much, especially if I start telling stories again. So, instead of writing on this verse, I will be starting an article on a passage from Second Timothy. Nevertheless, I would still like to draw your attention to several points that I was planning to address regarding Proverbs 15:1.
The first part of the verse is more frequently cited, and from the KJV: "A soft answer turneth away wrath." It is so often used that it has become a Christian cliche, but almost just as often, it is misapplied. To be precise, people infer more out of the verse than what the verse allows — and we cannot attach divine authority to a misinterpretation of revelation.
In itself, the verse at best tells us what will happen when we give a gentle answer and what will happen when we speak a harsh word. When we take into account the genre of the book, that it is a divinely-inspired collection of wisdom sayings and not a revelation of God's immutable decrees about what must be done and what must take place, it would be more accurate to say that the verse at best tells us what could happen when we give a gentle answer and what could happen when we speak a harsh word.
That said, it does not even tell us whether we should turn away wrath, or at least whether we should always do so. And if it depends on the situation, the verse does not tell us under what circumstances we should or should not turn away wrath. In itself, the verse does not exclude the possibility that it is the moral thing to do to stir up anger, and that it is giving us the moral command to reply with a harsh word.
Therefore, the assumption that we should offer a gentle answer is either unjustified, or it assumes an understanding of what the rest of Scripture teaches. But does the rest of Scripture teach that we must always turn away wrath?
This is all that I am going to say about the verse for now. Perhaps some of you will be interested in studying it further, although I can tell you, the commentaries are not very helpful in addressing the above issues. All the commentaries that I checked assume that we should always turn away wrath, and most of them assume that a gentle answer is always effective in accomplishing this. Some remember the genre and say that it is "usually" effective instead. But I have not even checked all the commentaries I own on the verse, so perhaps there are some that do it justice.
Meanwhile, before I can give an exposition of the verse in the future, I suggest that: 1. We must not use it as an universal moral command, and 2. We must not take it as an unqualified guarantee that a gentle answer will always turn away wrath, or for that matter, that a harsh word will always stir up anger.
If you are interested in studying this verse in greater detail, here are just some of the questions that you must answer:
- How does the genre affect the meaning and interpretation of this verse?
- How does the context and the structure of the passage in which this verse appears affect the interpretation?
- What is the main purpose of Proverbs? How does this affect interpretation?
- Does this verse command us to always give a gentle answer, or to always turn away wrath?
- Does this verse guarantee that a gentle answer will always turn away wrath, or for that matter, that a harsh word will always stir up anger?
- Are there verses in the rest of Scripture, or even in Proverbs, that teach or command us to reply with a harsh word?
- When must we give a gentle answer? When must we reply with a harsh word?
- Much emphasis is given to the word "gentle," but little attention is paid to the word "answer." Is the verse only teaching us to adopt a soft versus a hard approach, or does it say something about the content of our reply also?
- Why does the verse say "a gentle answer"? An "answer" to what?
- The verse says that a gentle answer "turns away wrath," so is the person already angry? What is he so angry about?
- This verse is sometimes used to instruct Christians on how they should perform evangelism and apologetics, but does it apply at all? If so, why, when, and how?
- And if this verse applies to evangelism and apologetics, how does it relate to 1 Peter 3:15, which as I have pointed out elsewhere, is also frequently misapplied?
Learning by Doing
From Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word (PDF, 13-16):
Another favorite educational model is "learning by doing," or to learn by experience. To learn this way, one must interact with the object about which one seeks knowledge, be it an athletic endeavor, a scientific experiment, a social situation, or life in general. Through the challenges and feedbacks from such experiences, the student is supposed to derive principles suitable for retention, which he may then apply to other similar situations.
This learning method is impossible. One who does not know how to perform a given task at all cannot even begin unless someone through verbal instructions, be it in the form of lectures or textbooks (or other informal equivalents), tells him the elementary principles. When this is done, the person is no longer learning from experience, but through intellectual communication. He is merely applying what he has learned to the experience. And if he can be told the basics, he can perhaps also learn the more advanced materials in a similar manner.
However, some may object, even if one must first learn enough in order to begin, does he afterward not learn from his experience while applying his knowledge? The problem with this is that no one can, without having relevant prior knowledge or presuppositions, choose from the many singular events and factors within his experiences and derive objectively true propositions from them. An infinite number of propositions may be derived from each experience, and which one of these a person "learns" depends on his worldview, already presupposed. The same set of circumstances can instill patience in one, and cynicism in another.
Arthur Holmes points out: "…to suppose unanalyzed experience itself is an omnicompetent teacher presupposes an empiricist theory of knowledge that is nowadays highly suspect. The eighteenth century view that we can gather piecemeal data and come up with generalizations and causal explanations simply has not stood up under scrutiny. Empirical observation is not entirely objective but selective, guided by theoretical assumptions and personal interests. This has become evident in recent work on the history of science: and if experience is not enough for science, how can it be enough for education?"18
He is correct, with the qualification that empiricism is "highly suspect" only in certain academic circles, and remains popular among the less informed populace. It generally takes many years for ideas to trickle down from the despised "ivory tower" – which is in fact the command center of the world – to those uninterested in academic struggles, and who falsely imagine themselves to be relatively free from the influence of obscure scholars. It remains that no one ever learns from experience itself, but every observer brings his entire worldview to the situation, and evaluates it through his presuppositions, which in turn governs the way he processes any information encountered.
When this difficulty is pressed against secular education, it can only result in complete skepticism regarding reality. On the other hand, when the Christian is challenged with such issues, he answers with the verbal revelation given him by the omnipotent creator God. All propositions deducible from divine revelation are rightly considered knowledge. But if so, knowledge comes from revelation and deduction, not experience.
Holmes, under a section called, "Pragmatism In Experiential Education," describes the theory of learning by experience as follows: "Experience is an immersion in natural processes, our sense of security challenged by unforeseen problems which demand solution…All learning is therefore situational…Learning is learning to adjust. Even the classroom simulates life experience, rather than exploring a heritage of truth and values."19
To say something else about the ivory tower, most people are oblivious to how learning by experience is a secular philosophy promoted by John Dewey which, as Holmes then says, was "in [his] thinking, simply an application of the theory of natural selection"20 – that is, an evolutionary doctrine. It is based on anti-Christian philosophical assumptions.
The attitude rampant in today's churches that we should "experience God" rather than to talk about him, besides exhibiting a false sense of piety, is based on a philosophical system hostile to the Christian faith. We increase in the knowledge of God by reading Scripture, listening to preachers that respect biblical authority, engaging in theological reflections, and constantly discussing the things of God with care and reverence.
Another writer has this to say: "A popular liberal slogan has been, 'learning by doing.' So the ten-year-old smokes pot, tries out sex, and sticks a knife into another kid's ribs. He learns by doing. Apparently some educators never suspected that some things should not be done and not be learned. But the pupil is not competent to decide such matters."21 Conversely, "The Christian educator…is convinced that the popular shibboleth, learning by doing, is unmasked when we see that evil learned in such a manner does irreparable harm."22
The current study mainly concerns itself with preaching, and while to discuss the theories of education is not too much of a detour, a thorough philosophy of education must be reserved for another setting. For now, let it suffice to say that learning by doing is an anti-Christian theory, and even sports and carpentry can be taught in a way consistent with the biblical model. We first provide the theoretical basis, and then if there is time, application. Further development occurs through additional theoretical reflections. This model invariably implies that a properly educated person will possess much more knowledge than his life and vocation require from him.
For the reason that one's knowledge should not be limited by pragmatic concerns, I find Jay Adams' "learning for doing,"23 inadequate as well. It fails to produce a superior student because how certain knowledge may be applicable is not always obvious; this is true even of biblical doctrines. If we were to limit our learning only to knowledge that may be applied, our narrow lives would imply an equally restricted scope for knowledge and skill acquisition.
Adams writes, "Learning takes place when one knows that what he must study is essential to accomplishing what he wants to achieve."24 That is what the product will be – one who knows only the essentials. How many accounting majors would then be interested in cosmology? Doubtless very few would find the need to read Homer or Milton. Only so much knowledge is required for any given field, and under the learning for doing scheme, one finds no justification to continue his studies after he has reached the necessary level of proficiency, and still less reason to study materials unrelated to his needs.
The correct model that maximizes learning and competence is to perceive knowledge, especially theological knowledge, as inherently valuable, whether one finds occasion to apply it or not. American pragmatists are horrified at the suggestion that knowledge should be acquired for its own sake, but I have no respect for American pragmatism. It produces shallow thinkers and incompetent workers.
However, certain theological knowledge demands obedience and drastic alterations in the ways we think and live; if so, we must comply, and this is application. This allows for an unending pursuit of knowledge, especially as relating to the things of God, as well as ready application where knowledge and actual needs coincide. But it also means that in knowledge acquisition, application never deserves the main focus.
This model of education is heavy on theory, and light on application; it emphasizes thinking more than doing – much more. Although I am wary of empirical endorsements, research in sports psychology suggests that mental rehearsal, with a minimum of actual practice, can be just as effective in improving performance as regular physical training. The point is that, with or without the support of such studies, this learning strategy applies even to areas that seem to be more physical than intellectual. We teach to the mind, and learn by the mind.
In the end, this manner of education produces the most brilliant thinkers who find their daily tasks easy to handle, since their knowledge and capability far exceed the actual requirements. In church, let us be more like Mary than Martha. The latter "was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made" (Luke 10:40), but Jesus says that "Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her" (v. 42), because she "sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said" (v. 39). Incidentally, this passage in Luke shows that it is more important for women to study theology than to do chores.
Still, many insist that lectures and textbooks are no substitute for life experience, but that is because they have never read a textbook where the author has recorded his life experience for others to read. Who is to prevent us from reading about the experiences of hundreds of people instead of only having our own? Yet, principles derived from life experience, whether others or ours, are unreliable and often plain false. In theology, our life experience will never produce knowledge that approaches the status of divine revelation, so we might as well abandon such a method of learning.
Notes
18 Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999 (revised: 1987; original: 1975); p. 89.
19 Ibid., p. 88-89.
20 Ibid., p. 89.
21 Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education; The Trinity Foundation, 2000 (original: 1946); p. 52.
22 Ibid., p. 134.
23 Jay E. Adams, Back to the Blackboard: Design for a Biblical Christian School; Woodruff, South Carolina: Timeless Texts, 1998 (original: 1982); p. 126.
24 Ibid., p. 127.
The Still Small Voice
From Vincent Cheung, "Biblical Guidance and Decision-Making," in Godliness with Contentment, chapter 3 (PDF, p. 42-43):
The "voice" of God does not always refer to his audible voice or special guidance. For example, Exodus 15:26 says, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you." That we must listen to his "voice" is said in the context of admonitions to "do what is right in his eyes," to "pay attention to his commands," and to "keep all his decrees." To listen to God's voice here simply means to obey the Scripture, and indeed the Law of Moses was received through the audible voice of God. The Bible is God's voice for us today.
Another verse sometimes used to encourage an active search for God's special guidance is John 10:27, where Jesus says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." But here he refers to coming to God for salvation. Jesus says that the only way one may come to God is through him, and his sheep – that is, those whom God has chosen beforehand to be saved – will hear his voice, and thus come to be saved by faith in him. In theological terms, he is saying that through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the effectual calling or summon of God is extended toward the elect company, who is regenerated by the Spirit, and will then respond in repentance and faith, resulting in justification and sanctification. The verse has nothing to do with special guidance.
What about Psalm 46:10, which says, "Be still and know that I am God"? Many distort the text to say that Christians should practice being still inwardly, especially during times of prayer, so that they may receive guidance from God. However, the verse does not say, "Be quiet so that you may hear from God"; rather, judging from its context, the intended meaning is closer to, "Shut up! Stop! And realize that I am in charge!" The NLT translates, "Be silent, and know that I am God!" And the GNT has it as, "Stop fighting and know that I am God."
The surrounding verses provide us with the proper context from which to understand verse 10: "Come and see the works of the LORD, the desolations he has brought on the earth. He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear, he burns the shields with fire. 'Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.' The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress" (Psalm 46:8-11). The verse does not have special guidance in view, nor does it intend to provide instruction for prayer.
The view we are currently combating teaches that even though visions and other spectacular forms of guidance are relatively rare, receiving directions through what is often called the "inward witness" or "still small voice" should occur quite frequently – that is, an inaudible voice of the Spirit communicating information intuitively to our inner man. But look at the text from which this concept comes: "And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?" (1 Kings 19:11-13, KJV).
Unless one reads the passage with the "inward witness" teaching already presupposed, it is unlikely he would conclude that the "still small voice" refers to an inaudible voice or an inner impression. Rather, most people would naturally, and correctly, understand the expression to be referring to an audible voice, only that it is "still" and "small." Verse 13 plainly states that "a voice" spoke to Elijah.
The matter becomes more obvious when we read from two other translations: "And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing" (NASB); "After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper" (NIV). There is no reason to understand what Elijah received as an inaudible voice or an inner impression.
This is a common difficulty encountered by those who teach this form of special guidance, namely, the texts that they use for support teach a form of special guidance that is more spectacular and unambiguous than what they are attempting to promote. The present passage indicates that Elijah heard an audible voice, not an inaudible one. If we are to follow his example, we should be expecting to hear an audible voice to guide us, and not inner impressions.
The Unity of Scripture
From Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology (PDF, p. 17–20):
The inspiration of Scripture implies the unity of Scripture. That the words of Scripture proceeded from a single divine mind implies that the Bible should exhibit a perfect coherence. This is what we find in the Bible. Although the distinct personality of each biblical writer is evident, the content of the whole Bible exhibits a unity and design that indicates a single divine author. Internal consistency characterizes the various scriptural documents, so that one part does not contradict another.
Jesus assumes the coherence of Scripture as he responds to the following temptation from Satan:
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Matthew 4:5-7)
Satan encourages Jesus to jump from the temple by citing Psalm 91:11-12. Jesus counters with Deuteronomy 6:16, implying that Satan's use of the passage contradicts the instruction from Deuteronomy, and therefore it is a misapplication. When one understands or applies a passage of Scripture in a manner that contradicts another passage, he mishandles the text. Christ's argument here assumes the unity of Scripture, and even the devil does not challenge it.
On another occasion, as Jesus deals with the Pharisees, his challenge to them assumes the unity of Scripture and the law of noncontradiction:
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-46)
Since David was "speaking by the Spirit," he could not have erred. But if Christ was to be a descendent of David, how could he be his Lord at the same time? That this poses a problem in the first place means that both Jesus and his audience assume the unity of Scripture and the law of noncontradiction. If they acknowledge that the Scripture contradicts itself, or that one can affirm two contradictory propositions, then Jesus would not be making a meaningful point at all. The answer here is that the Messiah is to be both divine and human, and therefore both "Lord" and "son" to Davi
But it is popular to encourage a tolerance toward contradictions in theology. Alister McGrath writes in his Understanding Doctrine:
The fact that something is paradoxical and even self-contradictory does not invalidate it…Those of us who have worked in the scientific field are only too aware of the sheer complexity and mysteriousness of reality. The events lying behind the rise of quantum theory, the difficulties of using models in scientific explanation – to name but two factors which I can remember particularly clearly from my own period as a natural scientist – point to the inevitability of paradox and contradiction in any except the most superficial engagement with reality…8
This is nonsense. Granting that McGrath knows science well enough to speak on the subject,9 this is a testimony against science, and not an argument for tolerating contradictions in theology. He assumes the reliability of science and judges all other disciplines by it. To paraphrase him, if there are contradictions in science, then contradictions must be acceptable, and one must tolerate them when it comes to theological reflection as well.
However, one reason to reject the reliability of science is precisely because it often contradicts itself. Science is a pragmatic discipline, useful for manipulating nature and advancing technology, but it cannot discover anything about reality. Knowledge about reality only comes from valid deductions from biblical revelation, and never from scientific or empirical methods.10 McGrath gives no argument for us to ignore or tolerate the contradictions in science; he just assumes the reliability of science despite the contradictions. But he gives no justification for doing this.
What makes science the ultimate standard by which we must judge all other disciplines? What gives science the right to make the rules for all other fields of study? McGrath states that science points "to the inevitability of paradox and contradiction in any except the most superficial engagement with reality." But science is not theology. Beyond "the most superficial engagement with reality" – although I deny the reliability of science even on such a level – science generates contradictions and crumbles, but this does not mean that theology suffers the same fate.
Theology deals with God, who has the right and power to govern all of life and thought. God knows the nature of reality, and communicates it to us through the Bible. Therefore, it is theology that makes the rules for science, and a biblical system of theology contains no paradoxes or contradictions
Any proposition affirming one thing is by necessity also a denial of its opposite. To affirm X is to deny not-X, and to affirm not-X is to deny X. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the opposite of X is Y, so that Y = not-X. Then, to affirm X is to deny Y, and to affirm Y is to deny X. Or, X = not-Y, and Y = not-X. Since to affirm a proposition is to at the same time deny its opposite, to affirm X and Y at the same time is the equivalent of affirming not-Y and not-X. To affirm two contradictory propositions is in reality to deny both. But to affirm both not-Y and not-X is also to affirm X and Y, which again means to deny Y and X. And thus the whole operation becomes meaningless. It is impossible to affirm two contradictory propositions at the same time.
To affirm the proposition, "Adam is a man" (X), is to at the same time deny the contradictory proposition, "Adam is not a man" (Y, or not-X). Likewise, to affirm the proposition, "Adam is not a man" (Y), is to deny the contradictory proposition, "Adam is a man" (X). Now, to affirm both "Adam is a man" (X) and "Adam is not a man" (Y) does nothing more than to deny both propositions in reverse order. That is, it is equivalent to denying "Adam is not a man" (Y) and "Adam is a man" (X). But then this returns to affirming the two propositions in reverse order again. When we affirm both, we deny both; when we deny both, we affirm both. Affirming two contradictory propositions therefore generates no intelligible meaning at all. It is to say nothing.
Assume that divine sovereignty and human freedom are contradictory. Some theologians, claiming that the Bible teaches both, encourage their readers to affirm both. However, if to affirm divine sovereignty is to deny human freedom, and to affirm human freedom is to deny divine sovereignty, then to affirm both only means to reject both divine sovereignty (in the form of an affirmation of human freedom) and human freedom (in the form of an affirmation of divine sovereignty). In this example, since the Bible affirms divine sovereignty and denies human freedom, there is no contradiction – not even an apparent one.11
On the other hand, when unbelievers allege that the incarnation of Christ entails a contradiction, which is the context for the above passage from McGrath, the Christian does not have the option to deny either the deity or the humanity of Christ. Rather, he must articulate and clarify the doctrine as the Bible teaches it, and show that there is no contradiction. The same applies for the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is futile to say that these doctrines are in perfect harmony in the mind of God, and only appear to be contradictions to human beings. As long as they remain contradictions, whether only in appearance or not, we cannot affirm both of them. And how can one distinguish between a real contradiction from an apparent one? If we must tolerate apparent contradictions, then we must tolerate all contradictions. Since without knowing the resolution, an apparent contradiction appears to be the same as a real one, to know that a "contradiction" is only so in appearance means that one has already resolved it, and then the term no longer applies.
Scientists and unbelievers may wallow in contradictions, but Christians must not tolerate them. Rather than abandoning the unity of Scripture or the law of noncontradiction as a "defense" against those who accuse biblical doctrines of being contradictory, we must affirm and demonstrate the coherence of these doctrines. On the other hand, Christians should expose the incoherence of non-Christian beliefs, and challenge their adherents to abandon them.
Notes
8 Alister McGrath, Understanding Doctrine; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990; p. 138.
9 He did his doctoral work in the field of molecular biophysics.
10 See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions.
11 See the relevant sections of this book that discuss the incarnation, the Trinity, and divine sovereignty vs. human freedom.
New PDF: "As a Man Thinks"
"As a Man Thinks" is now available as a PDF at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/manthinks.pdf
As a Man Thinks (22)
We have reached the end of our passage, and I promised to revisit the question of cynicism, adding to what I have already said about it.
Our passage warns that people can be selfish, insincere, hard, mean, calculating, and manipulative. Now, we are supposed to believe this and teach it to our children, as the Book of Proverbs is teaching all of us. But some people might worry if this would generate a cynical outlook.
Merriam-Webster defines "cynical" as "contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives." If cynicism must be contemptuous by definition, then perhaps this is not the best word to describe the biblical attitude. Nevertheless, knowing the doctrine of human depravity, we must at least be "distrustful of human nature and motives."
The resistance that many believers show toward this teaching indicates how much they have been influenced by humanistic thinking, which teaches that human beings are essentially good, and that we bring out the best in people by trusting them.
Scripture declares that human beings are essentially evil, at least until God sovereignly changes them, and even then they are still capable of great wickedness. Experience proves nothing, since examples in support of one view is always easily neutralized by just as many counterexamples. But if we care about experience at all, there is an abundance of examples illustrating how we often invite people to do their worst to us when we trust them.
Yet the Bible does not teach cynicism – in the sense of a bitter and hopeless pessimism, or an attitude that imposes a sour and sarcastic interpretation on everything. But along with the reality of sin, it teaches us to develop and exercise wisdom, discernment, shrewdness, and discretion.
In fact, the only rational prevention for cynicism is God's revelation to us concerning sin and salvation. Those children who are being taught that all human beings are essentially good, and that a trusting and affirming attitude can draw the good out of them, are being prepared for the shock of their lives. They are being taught something that is simply not true, and when they are inevitably forced to face the depths of human wickedness in the future – whether in the form of hate and harassment, greed and deception, or rape and murder – they will be left without the proper framework by which to interpret what they experience.
This is the very worst way to learn anything, partly because one cannot learn anything at all in this manner.18 Without revealed truth to structure and control their thinking, they will make the wrong generalizations about human nature and society, and they will produce sinful and destructive emotional reactions. Many would turn to blame God, and charge him with evil and injustice. Multitudes have developed an intense hatred of God just because people have done to them whatever Scripture says they would, but what their parents and teachers said not to expect.
On the other hand, someone who has been taught all the biblical precepts and doctrines regarding the depravity of man would not at all be surprised when things that are thoroughly consistent with what he has been taught occur. Whereas experience does not teach a person how to react, whether spiritually, emotionally, or socially, Scripture offers complete information on both what to expect from people and how to react when they behave exactly as expected.
In addition, the biblical doctrine of human depravity does not only teach that other people are sinful, wicked, and dishonest, but that we are this way as well. This and other related biblical teachings help to stem pride and bitterness from taking root in the believer's heart.
More than that, the Christian is also taught the solution for human depravity, that is, God's sovereign work through Christ and by the Spirit to justify and transform the sinner. An understanding of the extent of human depravity motivates him to cling to Christ that much more, and to earnestly hold forth the word of life to this crooked generation. Thus the informed Christian is taught not only to expect evil from people, but also to protect himself from this evil, to pity and forgive those who wrong him, and to preach Christ as the only hope.
Therefore, when the whole biblical worldview is taught – human depravity as well as how God addresses it – there is no inherent danger that one would develop a false or destructive kind of pessimism. A person with the right kind of pessimism toward man is not easily swayed by treachery and scandals, as many believers are swayed, but he fully expects them, and he expects them often. But he is never driven to cynicism or despair, because the also knows the Lord who is always true and always reliable, and it is only upon him that he trusts and depends.
Notes
18 See Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word and Prayer and Revelation.
— END of series —
As a Man Thinks (21)
To ignore this biblical admonition would be to set yourself up for a great disappointment. When the person's true nature and purpose are exposed, all the delicacies you accepted from him and all the pleasantries you exchanged with him would now seem revolting to you. What you thought was a generous act of hospitality was nothing but a show, aimed to profit from you or manipulate you in some way. You were foolish enough to play his game, and now you are left with regret and disgust.
But verse 8 would apply even if the person is simply insincere,16 and even if he has no immediate plan to use you or profit from you.
Once my parents took me to a semi-formal New Year's Eve party. I was still attending junior high school at the time – a boarding school – and I was home for Christmas vacation, which would end at the beginning of January.
As I always felt during these occasions, the party was boring, and the conversation superficial. I did not want to be there, and there was no place to hide and read. But the food was fantastic! Now, if they would leave me alone and let me concentrate on the buffet…
Alas! This woman, who appeared to be walking toward somewhere or someone else, suddenly stopped next to me, threw me a big smile, and asked, "Aren't you so-and-so's son?" I nodded, skillfully and imperceptibly swallowing the slice of smoked salmon that I had just placed in my mouth.
We exchanged some meaningless pleasantries that were forgotten almost immediately after they were said. She then started to ask me several questions about my life at school, but all the while her eyes were roaming all over the large room, but mostly scanning at the area behind me.
For several minutes, she kept up an apparent interest in our conversation. Just when I thought she must have had enough of this, she asked a very specific question about the curriculum at my school. I understood that she was pulling a "Dale Carnegie"17 on me, but he would have told her to make eye contact.
I was in the middle of my answer – in the middle of a sentence – when her eyes, still wandering, suddenly brightened up and focused. She threw up her arms and called out someone's name, and without even looking back at me or excusing herself, walked straight toward the direction that she was looking at, as if we were not having a conversation at all.
If you think that I was disgusted, you are right. The salmon showed me more respect than she did. I was not surprised or hurt, because long before then I had learned from the Bible that people are often insincere. But still, I was repulsed by the fact that I had entertained her hypocrisy in the first place (v. 8).
As far as I could tell, she was not malicious, and she probably did not even realize that she had walked away from someone in the middle of a conversation. Nevertheless, her action exposed the type of person that she was. She could smile and feign interest, but her real self consisted in the thoughts and dispositions of her heart, and not the outward impression that she tried so hard to create.
Notes
16 See John Gill, Exposition of the Old & New Testaments, Vol. 4 (Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), p. 486.
17 See Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends & Influence People. I had already read all of Carnegie's books by that time. Although I would barely permit one to read his How to Develop Self-Confidence and Influence People by Public Speaking, I would not recommend the rest for the Christian. See "Ungodly Counsel" in my Renewing the Mind.
(to be continued)