I have been following the story of the deterioration of Bart Ehrman from a scholar of New Testament textual criticism to a doubter of his own "fantasy". Let me explain.
Ehrman is the author of the best seller Misquoting Jesus and other interesting skeptic works like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Jesus Interrupted and God's Problem. Well meaning theologians and scholars have attempted to respond to his perspectives but unless they prove or disprove his "fantasy", they will not make a dent on his position. I would bet that he has fallen into the same trap as many deep-thinking students of classical theology. These have a scholarly and intellectual knowledge of God but almost no life-changing experience with him. Lots of head-knowledge about but very inadequate heart-relationship with God. Alas, but this is a natural by-product (or side-effect) of classical Hellenistic-rooted theology, all mind and no heart....God is impassive, God is timeless, God is sovereign, God is absolute, nothing about God changes...well-meaning cliches which, if left unqualified, and taken to the extreme leaves the student fatalistic or agnostic. I know. I have been there!
Ehrman's fantasy is no different from what we have called in this blog, Classical Theology (whether singular or plural is beside the point). Classical theology, has it's roots in Hellenistic thinking and originates from the following false assumptions (because although logical, they are NOT biblical and therefore, not originating from divine revelation) that from our viewpoint ends up in the disaster called "Bart Ehrman".
Ehrman is the author of the best seller Misquoting Jesus and other interesting skeptic works like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Jesus Interrupted and God's Problem. Well meaning theologians and scholars have attempted to respond to his perspectives but unless they prove or disprove his "fantasy", they will not make a dent on his position. I would bet that he has fallen into the same trap as many deep-thinking students of classical theology. These have a scholarly and intellectual knowledge of God but almost no life-changing experience with him. Lots of head-knowledge about but very inadequate heart-relationship with God. Alas, but this is a natural by-product (or side-effect) of classical Hellenistic-rooted theology, all mind and no heart....God is impassive, God is timeless, God is sovereign, God is absolute, nothing about God changes...well-meaning cliches which, if left unqualified, and taken to the extreme leaves the student fatalistic or agnostic. I know. I have been there!
Ehrman's fantasy is no different from what we have called in this blog, Classical Theology (whether singular or plural is beside the point). Classical theology, has it's roots in Hellenistic thinking and originates from the following false assumptions (because although logical, they are NOT biblical and therefore, not originating from divine revelation) that from our viewpoint ends up in the disaster called "Bart Ehrman".
- God is "good". This assumption, when left unqualified, is terribly anthropomorphic (a false method of theological interpretation), i.e., "good" being defined as "good from man's viewpoint". Greek classical definitions have this concept of good as some kind of esoteric perfect good. They cannot or will not explain why when God finished His creation on the first six days of finite time, He declared everything as "good". However, note that this "good" includes roaches, amoeba, venomous snakes, microbes, etc. I don't want to get into lengthy philosophical discussions of the concept of good right now but it is dangerous when a student believes he knows what is "good" other than from God's viewpoint.
- God is perfect. Another esoteric assumption. What does "perfect" really mean biblically? In Christ's sermon on the mount, He declared in the imperative sense, "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect". Will an all-wise God issue a command that can never be followed? Classical theologians should explore verses like this and check their exegesis. John Wesley seems to be the only early theologian who got this one right.(See Hermeneutics by John Wesley)
- God is sovereign. True but NOT the way classicists define sovereignty as being absolute and exercised by God absolutely. We already pointed out in this blog that sovereignty does not negate risk. Risk implies a lack (or release) of total control. God creating man in His Own image is a risk as we pointed out elsewhere (God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom) for he dared to create something with the ability to reject Him uttterly.
- God's omniscience extends to absolute foreknowledge and/or predetermination. This is where most classical theologies utterly fail. It is quite ironic because classicists see this as defining God and that is what separates Biblical covenant-relationship belief from them, i.e., the Ehrman's of this world. The Bible and bible culture seems to consider omniscience as limited to present and past (a blog on this is in progress based on Psalm 139). Phrases like God knowing the end from the beginning can be interpreted as idiomatic and simply gives an idea of the breadth of God's omniscience on specific things or on everything but not necessarily God "seeing" the future but simply extrapolating based on His omniscience, intelligence and wisdom. We have shown (in other blogs) that God is so sovereign, his omnipotence is so powerful that God has the ability to limit not just its usage but EVEN HIMSELF, and either he does it out of Love or He HAS TO do it out of love. This sounds almost heretical but if God is THE greatest communicator and the Bible is the sufficient revelation of Himself, it is clear that God practices more of omni-competence (See OmniCompetence- the Divine Attribute that distinguishes the Judeo-Christian God from the Pagan gods ) in history (especially in Bible history which is part of his revelation to us) than He practices omnipotence. In fact, it is very rare to find God practicing absolute predeterministc (absolute control) omnipotence and sovereignty in the Bible. A classical theologian gets confused when He sees a God who gets surprised, gets angry, argues with Moses where Moses logic prevails and God "gets convinced", predetermines king Hezekiah's immediate demise and changes His mind after prayer, and a God with full "human" emotions (God Himself declared that he is a JEALOUS God - that Mr. Classicist is a Divine Attribute if you may since God himself declared it!). Only a covenant-relationship foundation (open theology does too) sees this as obvious especially in a theomorphic sense and even common-sensical, for obviously, a God who HAS SEEN or KNOWS the future absolutely cannot display such behavior without being considered hypocritical or play-acting. So it is pretty obvious here that the sovereign God has locked Himself out (by His own choice) of much of the detailed future. Of course we maintain that whatever God has explicitly predestined in the Bible, e.g. the Second coming of Christ is set in stone and hence we agree that God also practices predetermination but as an exception to his methodology instead of a rule as the Hyper-Calvinists and other classicists (including Arminians) believe.
It is very subtle but the devil's main job is to muddle revelation - to make clear revelation unclear and he has so many methods, one of which is the classical approach to knowing God. The biggest mistake in their theology is their mindset. Their mindset is that of "defining" God instead of letting God define Himself through revelation. They fail to see that if they attempt to define God, then that is trying to know God without revelation and is tantamount to creating an idol or caricature of the true YHWH.
In our covenant-relationship theology, we have more solid foundational and empirical assumptions than the classicists. An these foundations are based on the approach to systematic theology which is not often used - Extract what the Bible says God is but balance and synthesize it with what the Bible does NOT say God i,s or what the Bible implies or declares that God is NOT.
In our covenant-relationship theology, we have more solid foundational and empirical assumptions than the classicists. An these foundations are based on the approach to systematic theology which is not often used - Extract what the Bible says God is but balance and synthesize it with what the Bible does NOT say God i,s or what the Bible implies or declares that God is NOT.
- God is super-intelligent. His intelligence and wisdom has no bounds but he is the master of logic, reason and common sense.Thus it behoves man to deal with him as one intelligent being to another. An intelligent God will not be impressed by ritual, ceremony, pomp and circumstance, pretense nor insincerity. Instead he knows to look at and into man's heart and motive(s) and then responds accordingly. In Jeremiah 9:23,24, God is not even impressed by wealth, power and WISDOM! So, academics out there, beware. Especially, beware of the wisdom (especially classical theology) of this world!
- God is a super-communicator and his communication skills make it more than sufficient for him to communicate His mind to finite man. It follows that if God is a super-communicator, man needs no special education to understand him. Man just needs basic logic and plain reasonable common sense in any language (which includes consulting reliable experts but critically testing their statements nevertheless) to read and understand the revelation(s) of God in Scripture. Of course, we should not ignore God's requirement, man MUST SEEK God in order to find him (Jeremiah 29:13). Note that most academics do not really seek God but simply seek information ABOUT God and oftentimes simply to validate their own beliefs or theories. We must also accept that because man is finite, he has to limit the scope of his understanding of God. Fortunately, God did specify that scope and encourages us as to what to look for in Jeremiah 9:23,24 (The NET version is quite faulty here, Please refer to the ESV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV versions instead by a left-click on the verse link. Could it be that the translators forgot that God is first and foremost a God of Love?).
- God is first and foremost - LOVE. That means his priorities lean along lines of personal relationships and delighting on each other. Biblically, that also means that God plays favorites. YES, indeed, that is a biblical concept which is common sense from our relational viewpoint as well as it's biblical precedents in the lives of Jacob (loved Joseph and Benjamin more than the others), Isaac (loved Esau more than Jacob), and God (He had his "chosen" people and now his "elect", He also did say that He loved Jacob and hated Esau! Malachi 1:2,3. No anthropomorphisms are valid here if one accepts that God is THE super-communicator. This is no less than favoritism. ). Let us face it, if God has no favorites, then he himself has no love, for love is a special attitude and feeling and when applied to the general public becomes no longer special. This concept is so common sense and almost defintional, AND... this addresses Ehrman's problem of why a loving God allows evil to triumph in this life. Of course, there are other concepts that support it including a fallen world that was actually cursed by God (so, is that a "good" God? well, perhaps Ehrman doesn't really know the God of the Bible but may know a classical God of his own imagination or fantasy (i.e., apart from revelation). Another concept is the fact that we are not in heaven yet and in order for a wise and intelligent God, in order for his people to sincerely desire heaven, has to further emphasize the contrast of heaven to this life, he has to allow misery, frustrations, disappointments, catastrophic illnesses, etc even among some of his own people especially those that defy his commands or designs in nature. Note that what God allowed to be done to Job is more of an exception than a rule and was done mostly for instructive purposes.
- God's sovereignty IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN subject to his unfailing, steadfast love first for the world but ultimately for his Kingdom children. There is a lot of discussion on this topic in this blog site. In fact this is what this site is primarily about, so I just leave that statement without explanation. (See how we resolve Why the Sovereignty vs. Free Will Debate will never be resolved on its own terms)
- There is no correct knowledge of God apart from Scripture revelation. (See Axiom 1 and corrollaries in Axiomatic Foundations for a Faithfully Biblical Systematic Theology - Draft 2) This point is very important. Classical concepts of God including the one's enumerated above are concepts that originated from Greek philosophy which later influenced Christian theologians especially the scholastics. These are concepts that have no root in Scripture and are simply eisegetical propositions advanced by these so-called "bible scholars".
If one is both intellectually honest and sincere and subscribes to the covenant-relationship foundations outlined above, all the Bart Ehrman issues would be resolved, perhaps not easily, but ultimately and even completely.
As for inerrancy and infallibility of the word of God transmitted through the centuries through fallible media, let me present a trick question which will expose how anemic classical theology is in response to this...
Why is it that in almost ALL passages that refer to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the writers always mention that God raised Jesus from the dead. Of course Christ hinted first hand that if you "destroy this temple, I will raise it up in three days". But how come the eyewitness accounts in Scripture mention that it was God that raised Christ instead of Christ rising by Himself? So, do we take that literally? allegorically? figuratively? But what is the low-down brass tacks TRUTH?
The answer is actually simple from the viewpoint of covenant-relationship theology. We start by looking at the correct interpretation of Kenosis (See The Kenosis: And how it flies in the face of Classicism and The Kenosis: Was the Incarnate Christ Fully God and Fully Man?). Paul declared in Phil 2:7 that Christ, in his incarnation ACTUALLY emptied Himself of the rights and powers of deity. Hence, the statements that declare that God (the Father) raised Him (Jesus) from the dead should have no theological issues when taken literally. It is when interpreted otherwise that you come up with major contradictions about the concept of God and His Love (even Sovereignty for that matter).
Also, note that we have a biblical "chicken-or-the-egg" problem here. Jesus declared in John 7:17 that the confidence of knowing truth is a result of a sincere desire to know God and not vice-versa. The bible has a lot to say about deeper knowledge and insights of God being available only to those who are His REAL Kingdom children. Christ promised in John 8:31,32 that knowledge of truth is only available to those who abide in His word. Jeremiah 29:13 also declares that finders have to be sincere and determined seekers first.
To be really frank and explicit about my point, anyone who after much study of the word and is still very confused about God, is an outsider to the Kingdom of God. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the natural man has no capability to discern the things of God. Sadly there are many who call themselves Christians, even pastors and theologians, who ACTUALLY fall in this category. Further, in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4, Paul states matter-of-factly that the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing because the god of this age has blinded their minds.
Now to the question of inerrancy, integrity of the transmission of Scrpture and reliability of the "approximate" word of God in our hands.
To start, this apologetic attempt is meant for those who DO HAVE a REAL RELATIONSHIP with God but are being put to doubt by the Ehrman debacle. To engage in apologetics to the unredeemed is mostly futile since their natural minds are simply incapable of spiritual discernment. So I speak to encourage and solidify that faith of those with redeemed or born-again minds, no matter how little, in order to possibly give it more strength by re-establishing the foundations by which it is based upon.
Now, to address WHY WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL WORD OF GOD.
Firstly, we don't, simply because man in his fallen state is simply idolatrous. That is why idolatry is addressed in the first two of the Ten Commandments. I am quite sure that if the Ark of the Covenant still existed today, or the stone tablets of Moses or even Noah's ark for that matter, these relics or the sites where they are found would easily be converted by fallen man into shrines and subsequently objects for veneration. Just look at the Roman Catholic church and Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe, ad nauseum. Look at what they did to Mary just because she conceived and bore the Son of God. They make her sinless which equates her to being divine and is tantamount to adding another person to the Trinity (see Roman Catholics do NOT believe in the Trinity!). Idolatry is simply in man's DNA and God is wise to remove everything that would substitute for him especially since these objects if indeed original are very much directly linked to God. God did say He will not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11)
Secondly, God almost consistently throughout Scripture demonstrates His Omni-competence (see OmniCompetence- the Divine Attribute that distinguishes the Judeo-Christian God from the Pagan gods). The bottom line is that God ALWAYS wins against ALL odds even with His "hands tied behind His back". Small wonder that He would also demonstrated omni-competence in the transmission of His word through imperfect and fallen medium but still be able to come out quite successfully communicating both His mind and His heart very clearly. When anyone simply goes through the history of the transmission of Scripture and the cannons of the Old and New Testaments, observing the process through the viewpoint of God's omni-competence at the very least magnifies your appreciation and understanding of God's workings in history especially when you perceive Him actively involved in safeguarding and protecting the integrity of His message. Unfortunately, many cults arise due to faulty hermeneutics and interpretations but that is their fault. One has to see the word of God attested to by the almost universally accepted cannons of Scripture and synthesizing its very essence to come up with really common sense interpretations and understanding.
This, I have found from experience, is hard to accept for a classical theologian whose concept of sovereignty is total, uncontrolled, risk-averse and predeterministic. Fortunately this is not the God of Israel, for the pages of scripture conclusively and unequivocally shows a God of mercy and lovingkindness, who takes risks, witholds total control over his creatures (i.e., controls the excercise of sovereignty) and desires to lock Himself out of most of the future except for those that He has explicitly predestined or predetermined in Scripture., e.g, the second coming of Christ, the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, etc.
Thirdly, Christ Himself said that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few".
...to be continued as I have yet to address Divine Inerrancy communicated through fallible media...
Meanwhile, other related topics:
As for inerrancy and infallibility of the word of God transmitted through the centuries through fallible media, let me present a trick question which will expose how anemic classical theology is in response to this...
Why is it that in almost ALL passages that refer to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the writers always mention that God raised Jesus from the dead. Of course Christ hinted first hand that if you "destroy this temple, I will raise it up in three days". But how come the eyewitness accounts in Scripture mention that it was God that raised Christ instead of Christ rising by Himself? So, do we take that literally? allegorically? figuratively? But what is the low-down brass tacks TRUTH?
The answer is actually simple from the viewpoint of covenant-relationship theology. We start by looking at the correct interpretation of Kenosis (See The Kenosis: And how it flies in the face of Classicism and The Kenosis: Was the Incarnate Christ Fully God and Fully Man?). Paul declared in Phil 2:7 that Christ, in his incarnation ACTUALLY emptied Himself of the rights and powers of deity. Hence, the statements that declare that God (the Father) raised Him (Jesus) from the dead should have no theological issues when taken literally. It is when interpreted otherwise that you come up with major contradictions about the concept of God and His Love (even Sovereignty for that matter).
Also, note that we have a biblical "chicken-or-the-egg" problem here. Jesus declared in John 7:17 that the confidence of knowing truth is a result of a sincere desire to know God and not vice-versa. The bible has a lot to say about deeper knowledge and insights of God being available only to those who are His REAL Kingdom children. Christ promised in John 8:31,32 that knowledge of truth is only available to those who abide in His word. Jeremiah 29:13 also declares that finders have to be sincere and determined seekers first.
To be really frank and explicit about my point, anyone who after much study of the word and is still very confused about God, is an outsider to the Kingdom of God. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the natural man has no capability to discern the things of God. Sadly there are many who call themselves Christians, even pastors and theologians, who ACTUALLY fall in this category. Further, in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4, Paul states matter-of-factly that the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing because the god of this age has blinded their minds.
Now to the question of inerrancy, integrity of the transmission of Scrpture and reliability of the "approximate" word of God in our hands.
To start, this apologetic attempt is meant for those who DO HAVE a REAL RELATIONSHIP with God but are being put to doubt by the Ehrman debacle. To engage in apologetics to the unredeemed is mostly futile since their natural minds are simply incapable of spiritual discernment. So I speak to encourage and solidify that faith of those with redeemed or born-again minds, no matter how little, in order to possibly give it more strength by re-establishing the foundations by which it is based upon.
Now, to address WHY WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL WORD OF GOD.
Firstly, we don't, simply because man in his fallen state is simply idolatrous. That is why idolatry is addressed in the first two of the Ten Commandments. I am quite sure that if the Ark of the Covenant still existed today, or the stone tablets of Moses or even Noah's ark for that matter, these relics or the sites where they are found would easily be converted by fallen man into shrines and subsequently objects for veneration. Just look at the Roman Catholic church and Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe, ad nauseum. Look at what they did to Mary just because she conceived and bore the Son of God. They make her sinless which equates her to being divine and is tantamount to adding another person to the Trinity (see Roman Catholics do NOT believe in the Trinity!). Idolatry is simply in man's DNA and God is wise to remove everything that would substitute for him especially since these objects if indeed original are very much directly linked to God. God did say He will not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11)
Secondly, God almost consistently throughout Scripture demonstrates His Omni-competence (see OmniCompetence- the Divine Attribute that distinguishes the Judeo-Christian God from the Pagan gods). The bottom line is that God ALWAYS wins against ALL odds even with His "hands tied behind His back". Small wonder that He would also demonstrated omni-competence in the transmission of His word through imperfect and fallen medium but still be able to come out quite successfully communicating both His mind and His heart very clearly. When anyone simply goes through the history of the transmission of Scripture and the cannons of the Old and New Testaments, observing the process through the viewpoint of God's omni-competence at the very least magnifies your appreciation and understanding of God's workings in history especially when you perceive Him actively involved in safeguarding and protecting the integrity of His message. Unfortunately, many cults arise due to faulty hermeneutics and interpretations but that is their fault. One has to see the word of God attested to by the almost universally accepted cannons of Scripture and synthesizing its very essence to come up with really common sense interpretations and understanding.
This, I have found from experience, is hard to accept for a classical theologian whose concept of sovereignty is total, uncontrolled, risk-averse and predeterministic. Fortunately this is not the God of Israel, for the pages of scripture conclusively and unequivocally shows a God of mercy and lovingkindness, who takes risks, witholds total control over his creatures (i.e., controls the excercise of sovereignty) and desires to lock Himself out of most of the future except for those that He has explicitly predestined or predetermined in Scripture., e.g, the second coming of Christ, the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, etc.
Thirdly, Christ Himself said that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few".
...to be continued as I have yet to address Divine Inerrancy communicated through fallible media...
Meanwhile, other related topics:
- God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom
- Covenant-Relationship Theology in a Nutshell
- The Chief End of Man is NOT to Glorify God
- Relational Theology's response to the Five Points of Calvinism
- Why the Sovereignty vs. Free Will Debate will never be resolved on its own terms
- Relational Theology Makes Finding God's Will a Meaningful and Useful Experience
- Relational Theology Makes Prayer Meaningful
- Relational Theology Makes Evangelism Meaningful and Critical
No comments:
Post a Comment