Literal Interpretation?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: The Bible: Reading the “Ordinary” Way by Greg Koukl
(original source here)

I never like the question “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.

Clearly, even those with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts that others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc.

A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query.

Taking “Literally” Literally

Let’s start with a definition. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” Why do people balk at this common-sense notion when it comes to the Bible or, more precisely, certain passages in the Bible?

Let’s face it, even non-Christians read the Bible in its “usual or most basic sense” most of the time on points that are not controversial. They readily take statements like “Love your neighbor as yourself” or “Remember the poor” at face value. When citing Jesus’ directive “Do not judge,” they’re not deterred by the challenge “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

No, when critics agree with the point of a passage, they take the words in their ordinary and customary sense. They naturally understand that language works a certain way in everyday communication, and it never occurs to them to think otherwise.

Unless, of course, the details of the text trouble them for some reason.

What of the opening chapters of Genesis? Is this a straightforward account describing historical events the way they actually happened? Were Adam and Eve real people, the first human beings? Was Adam created from dirt? Did Eve really come from Adam’s rib? Did Jonah actually survive three days in the belly of a great fish? Did a virgin really have a baby? Such claims seem so fanciful to many people, it’s hard for them to take the statements at face value.

Other times, the critic simply does not like what he reads. He abandons the “literal” approach when he comes across something in the text that offends his own philosophical, theological, or moral sensibilities. Jesus the only way of salvation? No way. Homosexuality a sin? Please. A “loving” God sending anyone to the eternal torment of Hell? Not a chance.

Notice the objection to these teachings is not based on some ambiguity in the text that makes alternate interpretations plausible. The Scripture affirms these truths with the very same clarity as “Love your neighbor.” No, these verses simply offend. Suddenly, the critic becomes a skeptic and sniffs, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

This subtle double standard, I think, is usually at the heart of the taking-the-Bible-literally challenge. Sometimes the ruse is hard to unravel.

An example might be helpful here.

Literal vs. Lateral

In the Law of Moses, homosexual activity was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). Therefore (the charge often goes), any Christian who takes the Bible literally must advocate the execution of homosexuals.

Of course, the strategy with this move is obvious: If we don’t promote executing homosexuals, we can’t legitimately condemn their behavior, since both details are in the Bible. If we don’t take the Bible literally in the first case, we shouldn’t in the second case, either. That’s being inconsistent.

How do we escape the horns of this dilemma? By using care and precision with our definitions, that’s how. Continue reading →

The Very Heart of the Reformation

Posted on by
Reply

This excerpt is taken from Are We Together? by R.C. Sproul and has its online source here.

At the very heart of the controversy in the sixteenth century was the question of the ground by which God declares anyone righteous in His sight. The psalmist asked, “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Ps. 130:3). In other words, if we have to stand before God and face His perfect justice and perfect judgment of our performance, none of us would be able to pass review. We all would fall, because as Paul reiterates, all of us have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). So, the pressing question of justification is how can an unjust person ever be justified in the presence of a righteous and holy God?

The Roman Catholic view is known as analytical justification. This means that God will declare a person just only when, under His perfect analysis, He finds that he is just, that righteousness is inherent in him. The person cannot have that righteousness without faith, without grace, and without the assistance of Christ. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, true righteousness must be present in the soul of a person before God will ever declare him just.

Whereas the Roman view is analytical, the Reformation view is that justification is synthetic. A synthetic statement is one in which something new is added in the predicate that is not contained in the subject. If I said to you, “The bachelor was a poor man,” I have told you something new in the second part of the sentence that was not already contained in the word bachelor. All bachelors are men by definition, but not all bachelors are poor men. There are many wealthy bachelors. Poverty and wealth are concepts that are not inherent in the idea of bachelorhood. So, when we say, “The bachelor was a poor man,” there is a synthesis, as it were.

When we say that the Reformation view of justification is synthetic, we mean that when God declares a person to be just in His sight, it is not because of what He finds in that person under His analysis. Rather, it is on the basis of something that is added to the person. That something that is added, of course, is the righteousness of Christ. This is why Luther said that the righteousness by which we are justified is extra nos, meaning “apart from us” or “outside of us.” He also called it an “alien righteousness,” not a righteousness that properly belongs to us, but a righteousness that is foreign to us, alien to us. It comes from outside the sphere of our own behavior. With both of these terms, Luther was speaking about the righteousness of Christ.

If any word was at the center of the firestorm of the Reformation controversy and remains central to the debate even in our day, it is imputation. Numerous meetings were held between Protestants and Roman Catholics to try to repair the schism that was taking place in the sixteenth century. Theologians from Rome met with the magisterial Reformers, trying to resolve the difficulties and preserve the unity of the church. There was a longing for such unity on both sides. But the one concept that was always a sticking point, the idea that was so precious to the Protestants and such a stumbling block for the Roman Catholics, was imputation. We cannot really understand what the Reformation was about without understanding the central importance of this concept. Continue reading →

Why the Reformation Isn’t Over

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Michael Reeves

(1) Why the Reformation Isn’t Over

(original source here)

More Than History
People might think that the Reformation is irrelevant today—just a feature on the pages of history. And they may not like history so they might not find that at all interesting. People might think that the Reformation was mainly a reaction to a historical issue 500 years ago that we’ve moved on from and therefore that reaction is no longer relevant.

But the Reformation was not merely a reaction to some problem that was in the church 500 years ago. The Reformation was, at its heart, a project to move ever closer to the gospel—that we might be ever more purified and reformed as believers and the church by the word of God.

That was how it all began for Martin Luther—with him digging into Scripture and seeing how Scripture could confront and overturn the teachings of his day, and it went on as that.

Change in the Church
The whole Puritan movement started in the 1560s in England—a generation or so after Luther—and was a movement that was dedicated to what John Milton called the reforming of the Reformation, because the Puritans were people who saw we cannot settle with any level of change that God has brought about in our life or in our church.

Therefore, we need to be constantly searching in his Word to see how further reformation needs to work itself out and what it looks like in our lives. And so, the reformation movement was a movement of constant change, constant purification by the word of God. And if the Puritans were right in that, that’s what the Reformation is: a project of being ever more purified by the word of God. If that’s true, and I believe they are absolutely right in that, then the Reformation cannot be over.

Here are principles that we need to hold onto. Let’s be constantly purified by the word of God. The central principles of the Reformation still apply because they’re ever-relevant. The matter of justification hasn’t gone away and so the issues of the Reformation cannot have gone away.

(2) Justification: The Heart of the Reformation by Dr. Michael Reeves (original source here)

Internal vs. External Transformation
The issue at the heart of the Reformation was without a doubt the question of justification. When Luther was growing up, the understanding of justification that he was taught (and which really drove him to despair) was an understanding of justification inherited from Augustine who had thought that Romans 5:5 was the clearest single text to articulate justification. It says that “God has poured his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit he’s given us.”

So with that understanding, God pours his love, by the Holy Spirit, into my heart so that in my heart, I am transformed to become more and more loving, more and more holy, more and more justified. It is an internal transformative process and that’s simply not what Romans 5:5 is actually about. But that understanding of justification as the transformative process meant that you could not be sure that you’d been internally transformed enough to be worthy of heaven.

And the answer to that question should normally, according to the Catholic Church be no. They would have said that most of us, bar a few exceptions, will spend a good time in Purgatory having remaining sins purged from us. What Luther saw as he turned to Romans chapter 1 was that justification is not an internal transformative process, it’s a declaratory act of God.

Divine Declaration
God declares by his word that a sinner, not on the basis of any internal transformation but by his own promise, is righteous as he is clothed with the righteousness of Christ. That meant that the sinner can be still a sinner in themselves and yet clothed with the righteousness of Christ— therefore confident before God in the face of death.

That was really the dividing line between a transformative understanding of justification and a declarative understanding of justification—one which has works as a cause of justification that contribute to justification, and one which has works as a consequence or an overflow of the transformation that happens when we find ourselves united with Christ and so clothed with his righteousness.

(3) Why You Can’t Have Justification without Sanctification

Limiting and Preventing Pastoral Burnout

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Rev. Bartel Elshout, pastor of the Heritage Reformed Congregation of Hull, Iowa. Original source: Jan/Feb 2018 edition of The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth.

For far too many pastors in North America the condition of pastoral burnout has been, or is, a painful reality. At times, this condition can have far-reaching consequences, as it will prompt some pastors to resign permanently from pastoral ministry, whereas others will have been so severely impacted by this condition that it has permanently disabled them.

All pastors, given the nature of their responsibilities, are potentially vulnerable to succumbing to this debilitating condition. Therefore the question must be asked, “what steps can be taken to prevent pastors from burning out as they deal with their multifaceted and demanding responsibilities”?

Before considering steps that can be taken to limit and/or prevent pastoral or ministerial burnout, we first need to consider what pastoral burnout is and what circumstances precipitate this condition. Also regarding this condition, we must first diagnose the disease before we can prescribe the remedy.

Burnout is essentially what the word suggests: It means that someone’s “candle” has completely burnt out. Practically this means that a burnt-out person’s physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual reserves have been completely depleted. Consequently, a burnt-out person can no longer function normally.

The following symptoms will often manifest themselves—symptoms that will vary according to the severity of one’s burnout:

• Fatigue
• Lack of energy
• Insomnia
• Inability to concentrate
• Inability to engage in mental tasks
• Depression and/or anxiety
• Spiritual despondency

I know from personal experience what a debilitating effect these symptoms can have on a person. What a frightening experience it is when it seems that your mind no longer functions and when you can no longer engage in what would otherwise be viewed as normal tasks and responsibilities! That’s what happens when one’s physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual batteries have been completely drained.

As is true for physical batteries, this usually does not happen overnight. The condition of burnout is usually long in coming. A person who burns out frequently has been burning the candle on both ends for a prolonged period of time, and has thus chronically neglected to observe the normal rest cycle that is so essential for the healthy and normal functioning of our minds and bodies.

When the divinely ordained rest cycle is inadequately observed for an extended period, the natural reserves of our minds and bodies will gradually (and initially imperceptibly) be depleted. Though someone may, for quite some time, get away with violating and/or compromising the rest cycle, there will come a day of reckoning when one’s reserves will have been fully depleted. The nature and demands of the ministry are such, however, that ministers are often vulnerable to overextending themselves.

The full scope of ministerial responsibilities is difficult to define, for the nature of the work is such that there will always be another responsibility and/or task on the horizon. Ministers therefore often have the sense that they are never really truly finished with their work.

Since the ministry is in a sense a twenty-four-seven calling, there can at times be a relentless inner pressure (sometime reinforced externally by unreasonable expectations) to work day and night. When this goes on for an extended period of time (sometimes years), the specter of burnout begins to loom on the horizon.

Since such burnout is usually long in coming, it will often require a considerable period of time to recover fully. It’s like a rechargeable battery—when it is fully drained, it cannot recover by merely being recharged for a few hours. It needs to be recharged overnight to regain its full functionality.

Let me illustrate this from the Scriptures. The last chapter of 2 Chronicles records for us why God chastised Judah with a seventy-year captivity in Babylon. Its purpose would be “to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years” (2 Chron. 36:21; see also Jer. 29:10).

The author clearly implies that Judah had robbed the land of its divinely prescribed sabbaths. Every seventh year, the land was to have a year of rest, and God had promised the farmers in Israel that they would prosper if they would obey His precept.

The implication of this text is that they had skipped the sabbath year seventy times—and thus over a period of four-hundred ninety years! Having violated God’s ordained rest cycle for this lengthy period of time, the Lord now compelled Israel to let the land rest for seventy consecutive years. Rather than the land resting at regular and prescribed seven-year intervals, this rest now had to be made up all at once.

Hopefully, the application of this story will be obvious. If we consistently and chronically violate God’s ordained rest cycle, we will ultimately burn out, and then we, too, will have to make up that rest all at once.

What must ministers do to prevent this from happening to them? We must obey God’s revealed will and honor His ordained rest cycle for our bodies! That means two things: (1) We must honor the day/night cycle and get a proper amount of sleep each night; and (2) we need to understand also that ministers must rest one day after six days of labor.

The weekly day of rest (preferably Monday) is especially essential for the long-term health of a minister. Both my father and I had to learn this the hard way, as both of our ministries were interrupted by burnout.

I remember my father telling me how the Lord had convicted him that he, too, had transgressed the fourth commandment by not resting one day out of seven. Upon recovering from our burnout, we both resolved that the remainder of our ministries we would rest one day out of seven. My father did so faithfully until the Lord translated him into glory, and I try to follow in his footsteps by also making Monday my weekly day of rest.

That day of rest has proven to be a real blessing for me personally, and I would lovingly urge my brothers in the ministry to do likewise. After all, there is no exemption for pastors in the fourth commandment! And thus the best way to limit and/or prevent ministerial burnout is consistent and faithful obedience of God’s ordained rest cycle. Pastors will only prosper physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually when they honor God’s revealed will!

What is Calvinism?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: What is Calvinism? by Dr Herman Selderhuis, professor of church history at the Theological University Apeldoorn in the Netherlands and president of the International Calvin Congress. He is author of John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life. Original source here.

Calvinism” emerged as a term of insult from Lutherans addressing Reformed Protestants in order to separate themselves emphatically from the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Although John Calvin distanced himself from it, just as Luther protested the name “Lutherans,” this term has nevertheless been preserved, although it is problematic. Calvinism is considered a synonym for “Reformed” and thus is typically understood as referring to something broader than the theology of Calvin himself. In addition to the Holy Scriptures as the most important norm, Calvinism serves, apart from Calvin’s own theology, as an independent continuation of the theological work of others including that of Augustine and Luther, as well as the works of Reformers such as Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, and Theodore Beza, all of whom are sources for what is called Calvinism. The explanation for the fact that Calvin’s thinking is manifested not only in a multitude of Calvinist movements, but also in Lutheran Pietism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Baptist theology, and Puritanism, has to do with the fact that Calvin’s theology contains elements that made it interesting and attractive in the early modern period because it was easily transformed and adapted. The term Calvinism is too broad and too diverse to be exact and could be replaced by Reformed Protestantism. Since, however, Calvinism is widespread and widely used, it should continue to be used, with a few caveats.

THE SPREAD OF CALVINISM
The spread of Calvinism in the sixteenth century may be called impressive in terms of time and scope. By 1554, there were about half a million Reformed Christians, but as early as 1600 there were approximately ten million. From the very beginning, Calvinism was strongly internationally oriented and has remained so since then. Factors relating to this rapid and extensive dissemination were, above all, Calvin’s Academy in Geneva, the universities of Heidelberg and Leiden, and other Reformed academic institutions where theologians and lawyers from all over Europe were trained. Calvinism has also had a great influence in Eastern Europe, especially in Hungary and parts of Romania. The initial spread in France could only be counteracted by force. In the German-speaking world, Calvinism gained the upper hand except in some Swiss cantons and in areas such as the Palatinate and East Frisia. In Scotland and the Netherlands, there were no Calvinist churches but national Reformed Churches, which in reality were connected to secular governments by law and as such were less “Reformed” in practice. Reformed theology has contributed to a worldview that has had a great impact on Western society and has also affected developments in church and theology in the Far East (Indonesia, Korea, Japan) and South Africa. That there is great diversity within the broad Reformed tradition is, for example, evident from the fact that both Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth belong to it. Although efforts have been made to create a contradiction between Calvin and the Calvinists in the sense that developments in Reformed orthodoxy had substituted rigid scholasticism for the dynamics of Calvin’s theology, more recent research has proven that there is no basis for such a contradiction. Also, the Synod of Dort (1618–19), which is seen as a highlight in the history of Calvinism, remained in Calvin’s line. Its decisions on double predestination, for example, were supported by delegates from Switzerland, Germany, and England, all representing various traditions within Calvinism.

THE THEOLOGY OF CALVINISM
The authority of the Bible as the source and norm for all of life, the sovereignty of God, and the responsibility of man are essential elements of Calvinistic doctrine. The Reformed doctrine of the Scriptures is formulated emphatically in the Reformed confessions. There it is confessed that the Scripture has supreme authority (because it is theopneustos, “God-breathed”), and that it is perfect, reliable, and sufficient.

Calvinism is distinguished in particular by the function of the law as well as by an openness to earthly life. In Calvin’s mind, the law has continuing meaning and is regarded as a rule for Christian life. This view is expressed in various ways, including paying attention to a correct lifestyle, a commitment to mercy, continuing reflection on law and justice, and the question of the right of resistance of subjects to the authorities. Openness to the earth has to do with Calvin’s view that God is also revealed in creation; thus, scientific research contributes to the recognition of God (Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton, among others). Culturally, Calvinism inside the church led to resistance to the cult of images as a threat to the proclamation of the Word and outside the church to an impulse for art and culture as a means of worshiping God. There is, at the same time in Calvinism, a sense of reservation concerning culture and science, because these can also become a spiritual danger.

Concentration on the Word and the cognitive approach of the theology of Calvin can be seen in the fact that Calvinism has a distinguished history in terms of creating a reading culture and has attracted many intellectuals to its folds over the centuries. This “binding to the Bible” has resulted in a church order that emanates from the independence of the church over against the governing authorities and assigns the elders the direction of the church. The function of the elders, who play the central role in the church, is typical of the Calvinist understanding of the church. The key to the Lord’s Supper lies in the exercise of the church’s discipline.

The understanding of the unity of Scripture results in a strong identification with Old Testament Israel. This identification manifests itself in a predilection for the book of Psalms both in preaching and in liturgy. The singing of these psalms further strengthened this identification, indeed, because of another characteristic of Calvinism, namely the pilgrimage motif. The persecution of the Reformed and their refugee existence led them, in their own opinion, to play the role of Israel expelled from Egypt to live in the desert on their way to heaven, the Promised Land. This predilection for the Old Testament can be seen in the many commentaries that appeared from the Reformed side on this part of the Bible. As a result of this understanding, the study of Hebrew and related fields has also reached an especially great flowering in Reformed circles.

LUTHER AND CALVIN
As much as Calvin desired to do so, he never met Martin Luther personally. The only occasion for contact that could have occurred between Calvin and Luther was prevented by Philip Melanchthon, because he did not dare to forward the letter Calvin had written to Luther in January 1545. There are some remarks of Luther in which he reports positively about Calvin’s works. As to Luther’s influence on Calvin, it is evident that the Genevan was in the true sense a pupil of the Reformer in Wittenberg. Calvin was convinced to build on the foundation Luther laid down, not to imitate Luther or just repeat what he had said but to further develop Luther’s theology without changing it. As to differences, it can be said that Calvin had more trouble with Luther’s character than with his ideas. That Calvin saw his own teaching of the Lord’s Supper substantially in agreement with that of Luther is clear, but he did criticize him for sticking too much to the physical presence of Christ in bread and wine. Apart from this point, Calvin stays completely in line with Luther. This influence of Luther on Calvin means Luther’s thought can be found in a much wider selection of theological traditions than just the Lutheran one. It is also due to international Calvinism that Luther can be found worldwide, as his spirituality, his liturgical insights, his views on preaching and teaching, and much more of his work has shaped endless numbers of Calvinists worldwide to this very day.

INFLUENCE
It goes without saying that Calvinism has a worldview of its own. It, thus, has exerted great influence in the fields of sociology, politics, economics, and law. Although the so-called Weber thesis, according to which there is a direct link between Calvinism and capitalism, is scientifically disproven, a certain influence of Calvinism on economic developments cannot be denied. Calvin was the first Christian thinker to develop a theory of the biblical right to interest rate recovery, which gave trade a vital impetus. Calvinism’s views on justification and sanctification and the strict practice of church discipline have led to a lifestyle that is strongly inspired by the Bible.

The influence of Calvinism, with its very own view of law and order, is also clearly perceptible in the sphere of law. The political and legal theories of John Althusius (1557–1638) and Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) are examples of this. Calvinism has also contributed to the democratic development of the Western world. The organizing principle of the “Calvinist” church, in which democracy and Christocracy are connected, has become, politically, a model wherein the government binds itself to the Bible as a norm without causing the theocratic element to be exercised at the expense of the democratic one. In addition, Calvin’s theory of the right to insurrection became one of the main foundations of the uprising that led to the independence of the Netherlands.