Jerome
Posted: April 13, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
In A.D. 331, Jerome was born to a well to do family that lived in Stridon, an Italian town. Since his family was very well off they would send Jerome off to study in Rome to study grammar and rhetoric. After living in Rome for some time he decided to become baptized and started collecting and reading theology books. The ascetic way of life called to him and he soon become part of a group at Aquileia in Italy. Unfortunately for Jerome, he had acquired a sharp tongue, and lacked tact which caused many rifts in the group that would soon lead to its break up. Jerome left and started out for Palestine but stopped at Antioch where he grew in his knowledge of Greek. By orders of a dream he stopped the Christian way of life and went to Syria to become a hermit. The hermit life did not do him well and many inner temptations plagued him during this time, so through a series of events Jerome ended up in Rome from 382 to 385. He was put to a job by the bishop of Damascus that would end up being his main contribution to western civilization, the Latin translation of the gospels, Psalms and eventually a large portion of the Old Testament. Jerome and a widow woman that he had a ministry with settled in Bethlehem where they established separate monasteries for men and women.
While living in Bethlehem, Jerome become more and more convinced that his translations for the Old Testament must be done with Hebrew and not Greek and so became what is known as the Vulgate. Later John Wyclif and Douay’s versions were based off the Vulgate. Jerome’s theory for translation was to “render sense for sense and not word for word”. One of his literary aspirations was to become a Christian Cicero, who would b a teacher and model of Christian culture. These dream roles in life could be what drove him to his insistent work and contradictions in character. Although he struggled with these things he came up with the first Historic Christian Work, “Lives of Illustrious Men”, which was written to prove to the pagans that Christians can produce distinguished literary works.
Augustine of Hippo
Posted: April 12, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Although his father was not a Christian at all his mother, Monica was a tremendous influence on him for she was a devout follower even in the years he completely turned his back on her religion. During his young adulthood he would go into the city of Carthage and waste no time indulging himself in the sins of this world. He had for himself a concubine and fathered an illegitimate child before he was 20 years old. Soon he become involved in a religious system known as the Manichaeism, which held to the belief that good, and evil, light and dark, were eternal. This way of thought seemed to deal with evil in a more superior way than Christianity and that appealed to Augustine. The fact that it had less moral burden put upon life let him live as he wanted and desired too do. He soon saw that this Manichaeism way of thought was not as it seemed and many times left him searching for more answers. He found those answers in the bishop of Milan , who helped him see that many of Christianities down faults were not because they were true but because they were misconceptions of the truth based upon the faith. For a small while Augustine dabbled in skepticism and following that was the writings of certain “Platonists”. By seeing the inconsistencies in these other religious ways it gave him the foot stones for the path to Christianity. In Augustine’s conversion he claimed to have heard a voice saying to him to go up and read, so he pick up the volume of the Apostle and read verses that spoke of giving up his old life of drunkenness and lustful youth and picking up the sword of the Lord and moving on in faith. So after being baptized he gathered up his son, Adeodatus, and his partner Monica. Later after both his beloved Monica and son died he studied philosophy and theology. He wrote many a short book including the works, “Against the Skeptics”, “On the Happy Life, and “soliloquies”. Soon he would complete what would be his best work yet, “The Confessions” in the year 400. This book provides a look into his life prior to 387 and shows most importantly the moral of his spiritual journey. “The City of God”, was later written in response to the pagan accusations about the Christians. After the Manichaeans had ridiculed faith as an “activity unworthy of any cultured and educated person” Augustine began to write works stating that all knowledge begins in faith and is a fundamental part of any religion. If anyone is going to understand the history of Christianity it is not possible to skip over the life and writings of Augustine of Hippo, for he laid many new foundations for the faith.
Creed of Constantinople
Posted: April 11, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
1. the significance of the phrase “the Lord and life-giver”?
The contemporary significance of the Holy Spirit is to show that He is no less than the Father and the Son. Understanding this about the Holy Spirit not only leads to the correct view of the triune God, or the speaking through the prophets, and the forgiveness of sins but leads to the correct worship of the trinity. Without a correct view of the trinity leads to an incorrect view of worship.
Basil Against Eunomius
Posted: April 10, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
A Outline of the theological and scriptural argument of Basil whereby he concludes that the activity of the Holy Spirit is conjoined with the activity of the Father and the Son.
a. Creator of the heavens
b. So the Holy Spirit imparts to the heavenly powers the quality of firmness and stability
II. Job Says
a. Spirit of God which made me
b. Speaking about creation but about fulfillment in respect of human excellence
III. Isaiah Says
a. He speaks in the person of the Lord(in respect to his humanity)
1.”The Lord has sent me, and his Spirit”
IV. The Psalmist Declares
a. The power of the Spirit pervades the whole universe
V. Lord Himself
a. Gave to those who received him the power to become the children of God
b. The Holy Spirit- The Spirit of adoption
c. The Father- distributing the activities among those who are working to receive them
1. Both of the Holy Spirit and Father are conjoined in their activity
2. Showing complete authority
Basil the Great
Posted: April 5, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Basil the Great was a man on a mission, and that mission was to clean up the church that had broken off, and scattered. It was a tattered church and he was there to repair it. Unfortunately he had very little success in the west and he had to call upon the help of Pope Damascus but to no avail, for Damascus refused to help Basil. As the great divide widened in the theology, Basil and Pope Damascus became more and more detached, which put the peace of the west and the east in jeopardy.
Basil, along with his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus, labored hard over bringing the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the East. They thought it misleading to encourage the thought of the Father just being equal to the Son, for it made it look like several gods, so they emphasized that the Father and Son must also be recognized as one God. These men’s thoughts on the Trinity were “complex and at points controversial”, and they used examples that were slightly inexact but Basil insisted that Father, Son and Spirit are equal but distinct. The Cappadocians, stated that the three operated inseparably, none ever acting independently of the others. “Every divine action begins from the Father, proceeds through the Son and is completed in the Holy Spirit”. Everything that Father touches the Son touches and inadvertently the Spirit touches.
http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/Basil_Great.htm
The Nicene Creed and Christology
Posted: April 3, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
How does this creedal statement affirm the full deity of Christ?
It states especially in the part that I have Capitalized, the unity of Christ when it states, “and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, OF ONE SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER.” He goes on to tell that Christ came down incarnate, becoming man suffered but then rose as only the Christ full of Deity can do, do the heavens.
Is the Christology of this Creed biblical.
What Happen?: The Council of Nicea
Posted: April 2, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
What happened at the council of Nicea was of monumental importance, for in that council the doctrine that was essential to Christianity was formally affirmed for the first time in history, Christ’s Divinity. Alexander of Alexandria began to lecture at a meeting with Presbyters about the Holy Trinity. He had been discussing the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for quite some time when an interruption from a presbyter called, Arius came from the crowd. What happened is debated but the man called Arius accused Alexander of a heresy that involves a belief in the unity of God at the expense of the reality of the Trinity. What Arius did not realize was that in combating Alexander he himself fell into a heresy of his own. He announced, “If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not.” These words were a direct attack on the eternality of God and unfortunately these words influenced the church for history. Meanwhile, Alexander was appalled at this new heresy and knew that it would take serious actions to combat it. Now that the statement was said he would have to combat the thought that possibly that Son could be infinitely lower than the Father. Alexander and Athanasius stood firmly on the foundation that Christ is absolute God.
When Alexander realized that this heresy was out of his hands, and private meetings and pleadings with Arius were not going to persuade him otherwise then it was time to take action. He drew up a letter that explained the totality of the heresy, unfortunately this was not what the people wanted to hear, and Arius’ catching phrases like, and “there was a time when the Son was not” became popular among the speech of the people. The news of the controversy traveled to the ears of the emperor Constantine, and he became worried about the unity which he regarded as, “the mother of order”, instead of theology. He wrote up a personal letter ordering that this quarrel come to a stop, but the letters orders were to no avail.
Constantine fed up with the bloodshed on this issue decided to call a meeting in the small city of Nicea and called 1,800 bishops and their invited presbyters to come to the meeting. Although the bishops did not make it in the numbers invited, pastors, presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, and laymen showed up by the numbers! When the actually meeting ensued, Constantine in all his finery gave an opening remark that gave an underlying threat, remove this dissension among you and establish peace. When Arius was given his time to speak, he broke out in his chanting that embodied his beliefs. After the rhymes and song were finished Hosius announced that the best way to reach an agreement was to draw up a creed. They came up with a creed that believed each of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be and to have existed. Although the heresy still existed Constantine was soon won over that this must be stopped. The burning of all Arius’ works took place, but the Arian way of thought thrived in the towns. When the council ended Constantine dismissed the aged and persecuted popes with gentleness.
Athanasius of Alexandria: A Pillar of Orthodoxy
Posted: March 31, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
An outline of the theological significance of the life and work of Athanasius of Alexandria.
A. Scriptural
B. Doctrinally
C. History
II. Athanasius’ Major Theological Statements
A. “Christ ‘was made human that we might be made divine’”.
B. “Only God could restore the human race to communion with himself.”
III. Characteristics of Athanasius
A. He was a passionate speaker
B. Spoke out with fervor and zeal
C. He stood on the foundation of his beliefs
D. Uncompromising and harsh in dealings with theological differences
IV. Athanasius’ Contributions
A. Life of Antony
B. Promoted monasticism
C. Introduce the personal devotional use of the Psalms
D. Defined Doctrine on Trinity
The One Empire of Rome according to Eusebius of Caesarea
Posted: March 30, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
All must wonder if they consider and reflect that it was not by mere human accident that the greater part of the nations of the world was never before under the one Empire of Rome, but only from the time of Jesus. For his wonderful sojourn among men synchronized with Rome’s attainment of the acme of power…Since that day the Jewish people have become subject to the Romans, the Syrians likewise, the Cappadocians and the Macedonians, the Bithynians and Greeks, and in a word all other nations who are under Roman rule. And no one could deny that the synchronizing of this with the beginning of the teaching about our Savior is of God’s arrangement, if he considered the difficulty of the disciples’ taking their journey, had the nations been at variance one with another and not mixing together because of varieties of government. But when these were abolished they could accomplish their projects quite fearlessly and safely, since the supreme God had smoothed the way before them and subdued the spirit of the more superstitious citizens under the fear of a strong central government.
One of Eusebius’ works has to do with the “One Empire of Rome” and how it was for a purpose that God ordained that the timing of events with the unity of the empire and the disciples journeys to the people. Without this divine intervention, the running into a one empire the apostles’ travels would not have been as successful and possibly not carried out. God had a hand in Constantine’s work as he did in this event in history to carry out his divine plan.
Constantine and the Christian Empire
Posted: March 30, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
A positive outcome that became of his conversion was the lack of persecution of the Christians at this time, whether or not his belief in a god or the God was genuine faith, he kept the people of God safe and harbored in their faith systems.
It was said that possibly Constantine continued to identify the sun with the Christian God in some way and many Christian writers would portray Christ in sun imagery. The specific instances in which Constantine intervened in the life of the Church.
In reaction to this attitude or ideal, later the church adapted too many pagan ideas and images. From sun–worship, for example, came the celebration of Christ’s birth on the twenty–fifth of December, the birthday of the Sun.
Another problem for the church that was a result of Constantine’s views was that the only Christian example for the role of a so called “Christian emperor” was the Old Testament kings of Israel, who actually had a major role in preserving peace and purity of religion in their kingdoms. In this time of culture, once the doctrine that the Emperor was somehow over the church had been established, it was never completely tested or challenged.
A third impact that Constantine had on the church is shown through this statement, “‘I am going to make plain to them what kind of worship is to be offered to God … What higher duty have I as emperor than to destroy error and repress rash indiscretions, and so cause all to offer to Almighty God true religion, honest concord and due worship?” Although he never went to Africa to relay this message, he ordered the churches under the leadership of the Donatists’ to be confiscated and their leaders banished.
Cyprian’s thoughts about his conversion
Posted: March 28, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Cyprian of Carthage and the North African Church
Posted: March 28, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
Tertullian and Western Theology
Posted: March 27, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
An Outline of an Article done by Gerald L. Bray, “Tertullian and Western Theology” in Woodbridge, Great Leaders, 49-54.
I. Background
A. Born in modern Tunis in North Africa
B. Sometime after A.D 150
C. Middle class family
D. Well educated in:
1. Literary
2. Legal
3. Philosophical
4. Greek
E. Died sometime after 212
II. Private Life and Occupation
A. Married
B. Possible that his wife died young
C. Nothing else is known about this area
III. Monasticism
A. He was drawn to this life
B. Selective on the use of their writings
C. Concentrated on the holiness writings
D. He saw this as a movement that advocated his teaching
IV. Tertullian’s Apologetics
A. The Apology – a long treatise in which he dissects pagan religion in order to point out its irrationality
B. Strong insistence on the power of baptism that he refused any remedy for post baptismal sin
C. Opposed infant baptism
D. The Soul- in which he shows himself to be pro-Stoic and anti-Platonsit in his general philosophical outlook.
E. He reached a point that the Eastern Church didn’t get to until the 451’s
V. Pastoral Writings
A. Exhortation to the Martyrs to Stand Fast in the Face of Persecution
1. Constant theme of Tertullian’s life
2. Often appealed to the examples of heroism set by the ancient Romans, rather than Biblical figures
B. Treatises that Deal with Matters of Personal Spirituality
1. Wrote with great sensitivity about suffering, prayer
For more reading on him and also many of Tertullian’s works (this could keep you busy for years) http://www.tertullian.org/
Montanism
Posted: March 27, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
1. ”Abnormal Ecstasy”, which is being in a frenzy that is not controlled by the spirit.
2. No controls, in which the new prophets refused to submit to the practice of discernment.
3. Worldliness was played out in the lives of the followers in questionable financial dealings, gambling, makeup and outward adornment.
4. Extra-Scriptural revelation that was held to a higher esteem than the actual Holy Scriptures.
5. False Prophecies that ended up being falsehoods and were not fulfilled.
Early Monasticism
Posted: March 10, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a commentAsceticism is the practice of rigorous and often added practices then the average Christian. They often find solitude and abstaining or changing from normal practices by Christians. They take the act of marriage to be something to abstain from and add frequent times for prayer and solitude. Some extreme Asceticist’s will keep from eating but two meals a week and when he did it was bread and water, that which is necessary to stay alive.
The New Testament has two views on this subject. There are times in the New Testament, that have been held to encourage asceticism but it was for good reason and is not required of the Christian. In the Scriptures Christ says, “There are some who are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God”, but this is specifically for people who can withstand it. On the other hand, the New Testament strongly criticizes some types of asceticism. Paul argued that it wasn’t wrong to marry and consume unclean meat. The Old Testament also has some say on the subject of Asceticism and the Jews had traditions that followed some of those writings.
There is speculation as to where the origins of monasticism began but the first monks were people who withdrew to the desert in Egypt or Syria. Often times these “retreats” were only temporary, and may have been for the purpose of to running from persecution; often they became permanent. The first Hermit-like man recorded was, Antony, who lived form 256–356 who was a Coptic peasant from Egypt. However, in the late fifth century, monasticism seems to have taken root in Ireland in a form which owed much to the Egyptian pattern The extreme inflexibility of Irish hermits, and the arrangement of cells within an outer boundary wall, both reflect Egyptian inspiration.
The routine of the hermits or recluses was to spend long periods in prayer and meditation, enriched by reading of the Scriptures that were many times “mechanical”, or involved short set formulas. Fasting was an important ritual to these devoted men.
Monasticism came out of Eastern Christianity. Then a Communal monasticism began by a man, Pachomius, who would fight extremism. Followers would prove their devotion by standing outside the monastery door for several days and memorizing parts of the Bible. A man that would influence this movement began to incorporate the monastic communities more closely with the church. This man was Basil the Great, and believed the bishop should have ultimate authority over a monastery. Another man that influenced Asceticism was Cassian. This man was the West’s inspirational writer on monasticism. He wrote detailed instructions for monasteries and served to endorse the monastic society widely. His writings were in great detail and covered subjects such as clothing, the form of monastery services, and also explored the temptations that a monk had to fight. He was detailed down the last writing.
For more information on Monasticism i found a good cite: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/monasticism/
The Epistle to Diognetus
Posted: March 10, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a commentAt the end of the 2nd century this unknown written does an amazing job of answering 3 questions.
#1 Who is God? Dealing with Theology Proper.
#2 What is the difference of Christianity and Greek and Jewish cultures? Dealing with Ethics.
#3 What is the race of man and the mode of living a Christian life to be in this world? Dealing with History.
You can read this letter which was written to an unbeliever (Diognetus) answering these three questions, describing a beautiful picture of the glory of God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html
or http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.i.ii.html
The Gnostics
Posted: March 9, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a commentA Gnostic is a person who stressed that people could be saved through knowledge or some call it “secret” knowledge. Gnosticism is shown throughout Christian writings of the second century, and some would classify it as perverting the Christian faith. They teach a sharp contrast in God and say that the creation was a direct result from the fall of wisdom, and creation is basically evil.
Since some believed that salvation depended completely on the knowledge of one’s ‘spiritual’ nature, they believed in indulging themselves in lusts of the world. Gnosticism enjoyed great success in history, especially in the reaches of Christianity. Not only was it successful but it offered explanations of the evil and confusion of the world and the human race.
In 1946 a bundle of twelve Coptic codices and fragments was discovered near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, and these writings have shed new light on the Gnostic belief, and convictions. Some of the important writings include, The letter of Rheginos, which stated that the resurrection was not a physical event; The Gospel according to Thomas, which has sayings attributed to Jesus; The Gospel according to Philip, which includes many sacraments, including baptism, anointing with oil and the ‘wedding chamber’. When talking about Gnostic leaders, one would mention the names, Simon Magus( the magician from Acts 8), and Irenaus, who developed the idea that Christ, fully man as well as fully God, retraced the steps of Adam, with a different result. He stated that because “Christ passed through every age of life, all humanity shares in his sanctifying work”. Although he had some theology pertaining to Mary, he based a lot of his teachings on the Scriptures
For more information: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html and http://www.gnosticteachings.org/
God, Time and History
Posted: March 9, 2007 Filed under: Patristic Church History Leave a comment
I have been reading through a book called, Introduction to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley. I will be liseting several summaries over sections, and chapters dealing with the Acient Chruch History period of 90 A.D – 500 A.D.
Cicero, an early Roman writer said, “not to know what took place before you were born’ was ‘to remain forever a child”. This relates to one’s knowledge in life and knowledge of the spiritual journey. History in essence was one man, that man being God, and His Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Christianity is a religion based upon history; the early Christians bled and died for what we hold so freely, the gospel. The Gospel itself is dependent on history, for it was in the long ago that a Savior was born to alter history for the rest of time. In order to understand this concept it is important to bring to mind the quote by Herbert Luethy, “Consciousness of the past alone can make us understand the present.” In order for us to partake of the richness of this Christian journey we must look back in history to the Cross, and the glorious Resurrection and see what was done for our sinful souls.As mentioned before Christianity is based upon history and the events in history, but a trap that Christians have fallen into is picking and choosing which history had God’s divine fingerprint placed on it. They wonder if a holy and righteous God could be involved in events as ugly as The Holocaust, or the Black Death, but accept his wonderful blessings upon the Great Revival, or people’s lives like Mother Theresa. A holy man in history that knew too well of the good and bad times was Job. He tells his wife in chapter 2 verse 10, “…Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” He knew that looking back on history God was good, all the time. We do not know why God chooses to put certain parts of history in His plan, but many Christians need to come to the realization that we will know someday when we are with Christ. We may not know what God has planned but we do know that the Scriptures coincide with history or “tradition”. The word tradition has become a word with a negative connotation, leading to putting tradition over the Holy Bible. In reality in ancient times this word was, “regarded principally as an interpretation and unraveling of Scripture”. It has come to be that too many Protestants have embraced an unnecessarily negative attitude to tradition, and have failed to implement in their faith a study of the story of the church. It was stated that in one sense church history is the story of the struggle to keep, the Holy Spirit, the people of God and human organization together as one flowing part of history. Christianity does not need to fight against history but embrace the one who holds history in the palm of his hands.
John Bunyan
Posted: March 8, 2007 Filed under: Reformation Church History Leave a comment
John Bunyan was born on the 30 November, 1628 in Elstow, England, near Bedford.[1] All that is told of his birth are the records in the Elstow Church: “John, the sonne of Thomas Bonnion Junr baptized on the 30th of Novemb”.[2] John’s parents were part of the Anglican Church, raising him in the beliefs of their church. His father, Thomas Bunyan was a tinker in trade. Little is known of his mother, Margaret Bunyan. John’s mother passed away in the summer of 1644, followed by his sister Margret a month later. Two months after the death of his wife and daughter, Thomas Bunyan remarried.[3] Because of the devastating loss of his mother and sister, John Bunyan, at the age of 16, entered the Parliamentary Army. Though scholars debate on how long he served in the army, he was discharged June of 1647. After his discharge from the army, John married. Though her name was never recorded, she bore him three children, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas. Neither John nor his wife were well-off. They only had a dish, a spoon, and two books that John’s wife brought with her. These two books were gifts to her from her father.[4] Though they were very poor, John loved his wife dearly. As the years passed, she helped John rise to his full educational potential. Along with education, she showed John her love for the Lord. John began to see his wife’s, spiritual life carried out in her everyday life.
The Conversion
In 1650, Bunyan began to watch and wonder what made his wife’s life so different than the other religious men and women around him. Within the next five years, he converted to Puritanism. During this time Bunyan gave up some of his activities such as, dancing, bell ringing, and sports. He still struggled in many ways with the temptation of spiritual despair. The scriptures of damnation that he had read in the Holy Bible began to mold Bunyan into different beliefs then he believed before. Bunyan found texts that showed him that his sin was not unto death. These passages comforted him; he was able to overcome his depression while making spiritual progress. To his benefit, John became good friends with John Gifford. John Gifford was an associate from the Bedford Separatist Church. He invited John Bunyan into the community of saints, there at the local church.[5] Shortly after John attended the church, he became a member. In 1654 Pastor Gifford would pass away. At this time Bunyan started to preach in many churches in Bedford. During the next five years, Bunyan argued[6] for open communion with the Quakers.[7]
The Preacher
In 1659, Bunyan’s work, The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded, showed the covenant theology and the practice of Calvinism that he believed in. His beliefs, along with his preaching of sermons, were not in conformity with those of the Church of England. This landed would land him in the county jail in 1660. Here, Bunyan stood for his beliefs. He refused to quit preaching against the Church of England. At this time Bunyan was sentenced to three months in jail. He was told to conform or be banished. In 1661 Bunyan was placed in prison for refusing to preach what he believed. Before Bunyan’s imprisonment, he remarried in 1659. While in jail, Bunyan made shoelaces for money to support his family, and he also wrote endlessly during this time. His wife, Elizabeth, requested for his release from prison. She appealed to Sir Matthew Hale and Thomas Twisden who denied it. Over the next 12 years, Bunyan was given the privilege to leave prison and preach in many of the Bedford Churches. He was also allowed to attend church related activities. He was even granted a visit to London in the fall of 1661. He bought with him a copy of the Bible and Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to prison. Throughout these years in prison, the threat of the gallows troubled his mind. Though very troubled, Bunyan focused on Rev.21:10-22:4 where he would one day be.[8]
The Liberation
June 21, 1677 John Bunyan was released from prison with the aid of John Owen. John Owen ministered in a church in London. He had appealed Bunyan’s release to Bishop Thomas Barlow. From this day on John Bunyan continued writing even more than before. He wrote books on spiritual areas that he had preached, expositions of texts, and finished his most famous work, Pilgrims Progress in 1685. Within the next three years Bunyan had written ten more books, which were included in his three volume set, Bunyan’s Works.[9]
On August 31, 1688 Bunyan was called home with the Lord. Bunyan had caught a severe cold on his travels. While lying on his death bed, his good friends, George Cokayn, John Strudwick, and Charles Doc asked him what more could be done for him. Bunyan reply, “I desire nothing more than to be with Christ, which is far better.” He was buried in Bunhill Fields next to his good friend John Owen.[10] Bunyan never sought after worldly belongings, nor did he care to become a well-known man. Bunyan was a man that sought after Christ and lived out his convictions. [1] Easy to get information on John Bunyan read: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Edited by John M’Clintock and James Strong, 1867-87; Dictionary of National Biography, 1908-09; Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908-28; The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974- ; New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1908-12.
[2] Harrison, 1964, pp.5
[3] Other biographies on John Bunyan’s life, theology and works: John Brown, John Bunyan: His Life Times and Work, 1885; J.A. Froude, English men of letters, 1887; E. Venables, Great Writer’s Series, 1888; W.H. White, Literary Lives Series, 1904; Kerr Bain, two volumes set on The People of the Pilgrimage, 1887; Sir Walter Scott’s review of Southey’s Life in the Quarterly Review, Oct. 1830; Dean Howson, Companions for the Devout Life, 1877; W. Robertson Nicoll, Evangelical Succession Series, 1884. Ola Elizabeth Winslow, John Bunyan, 1961; Monica Furlong, Puritan’s Progress, 1975; Lynn Veach Sadler, John Bunyan, 1979; William York Tindall, John Bunyan, 1934.
[4] The title of these two books are: The Plain Man’s Path-way to Heaven, Wherein every man may clearly see, whether he shall be saved of damned, by Arthur Dent, and The Practice of Pietie, directing a Christian how to walk that he may please God, by Lewis Bayly.
[5] It is best to read John Bunyan’s word’s himself on his conversion to Christ: Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, paragraphs 229-32, pp.105-07.
[6] On John Bunyan’s debates and concerns against other religious practices that he dealt with during his time: Dictionary of National Biography, 1908-09.
[7] Dealing more with the debate between the Baptist and the Quakers: T.L. Underwood, Primitivism, radicalism, and the Lamb’s War: the Baptist-Quaker conflict in the seventeenth century England (1997). For more information on Bunyan and the Quakers (his first printed works): Some Gospel Truths Opened, 1656, and A Vindication of Some Gospel Truths Open, 1657.
[8] This text in Rev.21:10-22:4 would later be what inspired him to write, The Holy City, which was an understanding of the Church and end times. Later its’ sequel in 1665 would be written, The Resurrection of the Dead.
[9] Easy reference guide to Bunyan’s works: J.R. Beeke and R.J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans, pp. 101-12. For more in-depth work on Bunyan’s works: J.R. Knott, Bunyan Studies: John Bunyan and his time, vol. 1, 1998, H. Talon, John Bunyan: the man and his works, 1951.
[10] You can read George Cokayn benediction of John Bunyan’s life in Harrison, John Bunyan, pp.198-99.
God Centered Biblical Interpretation
Posted: December 20, 2006 Filed under: Book Review 4 Comments
Context:
This book starts out with a number of different examples of the way today’s world looks at scripture and how they interpret it. I’ve stared to see how others in today’s culture come to their conclusions, and how they receive their information other then scripture alone. Knowing that God is the ultimate authority, we should form that mind-set and remember that we do not need other writings, and other thoughts that contradict the Word. A proper interpretation does not include your own ideas and thoughts added to the text. A way of coming to wrong conclusions on text are, having a limited vision, making statements that are untrue, or sometimes making statements that are partially true. One of the best passages that the author Vern Poythress brings to attention is John 17. This passages usage two persons of the Trinity conversing with each other, helps show us the language used in scripture and also the communication that God maybe getting across through out His Word. In this passage we must differently remember that Christ is not only human in his nature but also divine. The context of the passage shows Jesus the son talking to His Father in Heaven, God, this helps us tie the knowledge of Jesus to the Bible. This knowledge gives us several parts of speech in its text and the surrounding text around 17.
When explaining what the Bible is, Poythress shows how God communicates to human through His covenants, and through these covenants God gives several elements to each one of them. All the covenants start with showing and explaining the Lord. From the beginning of all history, the past covenants are address to whoever it may be and then the Lord gives obligations to his people who the covenant may concern. After that, God tells his people about what blessings will become through their obedience, and what curses will come for their disobedience. Lastly, the Lord tells on how to pass on the covenant to their generations. Through this all, God makes a relationship with His chosen people.
When seeing that the word of God controls the sanctification of the disciples in John 17:17, the word that Jesus talks bout in this passage appear representative. Lastly this passage about the words spoken by God and the Father, are all personally present. Helping see these truths is what enables the transformation of his people. After developing this, comes a more detailed Christocentric character of the biblical truth. Some of the key passages that I found most important in studying this is Col 2:3, 2 Cor.1:20, 1 Tim.2:5, and far most importantly out all of them is the passage of Luke 24:25-27, 44-47. Because of the claim is right from Jesus it makes it so clear about a Christocentric view in the passage. Here Jesus refers to the Old Testament, in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings to all point to His fulfillment,which is leading to the conclusion that the Old testament is about Him.
The Bible shows us that human beings were created in a way that they could speak and understand language. Human beings use language that imitate God, who also uses a type of language but human speaking is just an image or a mirror of the divine speaking of the trinity. If we know that Jesus is the truth of God the Father and that his truth is manifested through the holy spirit, it helps teach us humans whatever truth we know. Proythress explains the truth in the trinity like this: “Truth in the father is original reality, truth in the son is the manifestation in reality, and the truth and the spirit is the harmony:”, between the Father and the Son through their mutual indwelling. A great way to illustrate the unity of the triune character in truth and speaking is the diversity in the four gospels. There is unity to the four gospels but there is also diversity in these books and an example is in Matthew, Jesus is prominently the Davidic king whereas in John, he is the son of the Father. In Luke he is the one bringing salvation, and then in Mark he is the son of man that will destroy the kingdom of Satan. The diversity in the four gospels is the difference of interest and personalities of the four human authors. The trinity provides an answer for relativism through its coherence, for God is one and doesn’t contradict himself in any way we should learn to appreciate the difference of the gospels but never forget about the unity and over all picture of all four. In the character of God we should never question truth because of the way it is spoken or what type of literature it is. Whether it is analogical or metaphorical it is the divine language of the true God, which speaks only truth.
The last area of content I would like to go over is the chapter written on History. God created history. The events in history took place in God’s plan of redemption. Understanding history and its lay out, helps us understand the lay out through-out in the Bible. History and the art of God speaking, have a lot in common. It is the most common in where God is speaking to the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Sprit carries out what to do, which shows events in history (Gen1:3). One of the most important parts to understanding history through out the Bible is history’s unity and diversity. In this the author explained the accordance with the classification aspects, like the fact that each historical event is classifiable. The next step in this process is to consider each instantiation aspect. This helps show how each event is special in its own history. Lastly is the associational aspect. This I find very important in studying scripture and how historical events fit along with all other historical events that take place or will take place.
Key Insights:
The first “key insight” that came out to myself while reading this book was, remembering that God is the encyclopedia of all knowledge. I am sure I have been told this many times, but when reading this Poythress brought out that God does not always just give that knowledge out in words or spoken to people. Seeing what we do have in scripture makes everything much more meaningful and places so much more depth to them. A good example is in John 17:5, where Jesus ask God to “Glorify me”. This is a absolute great example of redemption. This being the complete plan of God then seeing Him the father and His son, Christ, talk in a conversion, and say a remark as to that, brings the climax of my salvation.
When I came to chapter four I was most excited. With the readings of pervious books on the meaning and interpretation of the Bible, I was “pumped” to read Poythress’s view. For myself, I found this the most enjoyable chapter of his book. It was very simple but something that it seems so easily misconstrued, especially in the circle that I have learned in. so many people today make the purpose of the Bible something they think or something that they’ve missed in scripture. Mostly I have see how many people do what exactly they do. What this is I am talking about is that many theology students, or even scholars today lessen Christ in their purpose. I think that is because they sometimes become scared of another system of theology, or other sides of the spectrum. What I am getting at is, many times dispensational theology many times lessen Christ in any way of being a part of their purpose that the bible is over. I like how easily and clear in scripture Poythress shows Christ being the centrality of the Word of God. I would also say the purpose of the Bible is to reveal Gods glory, but I would add in the work of redemption through His Son, Jesus Christ. I would say next being Christocentric is not a “reformed system”. Christocentric is being biblical in your hermeneutic. If you are not you will miss the meaning and the correct interpretation of the Old Testament. I am sure that many people in today’s Christian realm would have no problem saying that the New Testament is all about Jesus. But I wonder how many people would say, that the Old testament is all about Him. I would say to that not being Christocentric in your Old Testament is not what Christ intended for you to interpret the Old. Testament. The book of Hebrews does such a wonderful job of this showing the Christ of the New Testament and how all of the shadows of the Old Testament have lead and only guided the way for the ultimate Jesus.
Another insight that I found when reading was the creativity in the meaning of the scripture. When understanding and remembering that God is the creator, we see God’s way of communication of the important passage and its context. The creator made his message to be made known in a creative way, making it almost like a scientific study that we must do to look and see the context of the text. In this there are many diversities in the body of Christ. Applications come in many different ways because of the different members in the body of Christ. Understanding that many applications can be taken but remembering the interpretation must remain the same. This shows another example of how there is diversity but unity as well in the body of Christ.
I found that being a believer and studying the scripture, and doing it in a “godly fashion” helps the church. I thought about the unbelievers in today’s world make so many mistakes when studying the Bible. How the unbeliever neglects that facts of keeping humility, and spiritual discernment in which I struggle myself with so much. How can a unregenerate man renew his mind when studying the scriptures make it all in vain (Rom.12:2). Studying the Bible and being a believer and a born again Christian helps us stay in subject to Christ. It also helps purify the whole body of believers. Teaching the Bible and seeing it actually be lived out is the reason for scripture. We see examples of this in the Reformation. Jonathan Edwards and how he gave the scriptures to be taught to help the process of stanification. As well as Charles Spurgeon and seeing what a proper study of the Bible can do, in bringing more to Christ and growing them in the scriptures makes the reason out of studying so much more glorifying to God and not man.
Many individuals have different perspectives on history and how it can or will effect their study. When we understanding history better we then can better understand the perspectives on hermeneutics. Seeing how each individual events takes place in order to make a process and show the rest of history to come helps see the value of the Bible. Another way Poythress uses to explain history is looking at it like, how history develops time. This is showing how each events can make the future and make that future event. Then lastly is the perspective of all history takes place now. That the past of history is in the present. Looking at history the way Poythress shows in his book, helps see the events that take place in history are always related to one another in some type of way. Seeing history in a plan that God has panned out and constantly revealed in and through out history better explains the work of redemption and what His plans were for humankind. Looking through history and seeing the typological and symbolical patterns that constantly occur over long stretches of history lead always to and form the cross of Christ. The death and resurrection of Christ is the very center of history. that’s that is what is the pivotal pin point in and through-out all of history no matter before or after.
Critique:
When first starting to read this book what came into mind was, “man this is so simple”. As I continued to read through chapters one and two and going over understanding the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible. I understood very easily to say the least. Easy and explanatory would be the keys words that came to mind over those chapters. Going into to chapter three and seeing his view of how the Bible is something spoken by God almost reminded of the beginning of Hebrews class and how Gods langue is something that we image form Him. The beginning of this book is very easy to read. Then I hit the chapters in the back dealing with history, which I understood, after that is when trouble began. The idols, global distortion, and of terms lost me. I have to read the book another time with a dictionary to understand his terms.
At first when reading the dialogues of individuals and their views I found it annoying and just easy reading. Latter through the book and reading it a second time I found questions that many of them ask, in which the bible answers. I also found their views help to asking questions that we should be answering in and throughout the text. Also questions that you could name a sermon or a speech. These questions have helped me in studying the scriptures and how scripture can and does answer everything that man makes up. What I mean by this is that man tries to think of ways that the Bible does not add up to. They also try to ask questions such as some of the ones in this book to go against the Bible. Poythress does a great job in using his mind and his hermeneutic to defend the case of God center biblical interpretation. Asking the question he does about the text his goes through has given me examples that can help me not only in my own study, but also in everyday life,through out my work field, and one day teaching either in the church setting or class room.
I also enjoyed the way Poythress explained history and how it leads to Christ. After reading the book “Beginning at Moses”, by Michael Barrett Poythress’ chapter on history made so much sense to me, even more than I knew before. Seeing how little events through out all of history lead to the point of the cross and then even thinking for myself about the events after the cross that stem from that pivotal point in all of history, I started to think how can one not be gospel centered. How can someone not be Christ centered? Each individual event in the Old Testament leads towards the cross of Christ.
Lastly, the chapters over how God communicates with us today are a huge in helping understand ones hermeneutic. Poythress does an amazing job of showing in examples of the trinity and also other scripture passages that he helps bring out the communication process of God and how we his created beings image that in our everyday talk. This helps make the Bible more easily to comprehend and also to see in God is trying to get out through history.
After reading this book I have come to the conclusion that you can not get what Christ has intended for out of his word, without having a Christocenic view, and interpretation of scripture. Throughout history, and in scripture Christ is the center of it all. Realizing this helps see the biblical truth in which God has intended it for. Becoming more detailed in the Old Testament and looking for history events that lead to the major history event of Christ help reveal its biblical truth. Like Poythress stated, “few would challenge the idea of Christ in the Old Testament”, but understand a correct view of the New Testament must include finding Christ within the Old Testament. Christ told his disciples this in Luke 24:44-47, and that all of scripture leads, and tells about Him. In no way do I think Poythress is taking any scripture out of context with saying these values of the Bible. He is opening a door in which we can find the true and correct view of our Bible, our theology, but far most important our Christ.
Dispensationalism
Posted: December 17, 2006 Filed under: Book Review 1 Comment
Not that i do or do not agree with the system of dispensationalism, this is only a book review of what Charles Ryrie has stated or believes.
In reading this book and writing this paper, I really do not know what to exactly say or get across. So I figured I would go over and hit some of the main issues that were talked about by Dr. Ryrie and show you that I read the book, and understood it the best that I could. I will be briefly going over some of the main views and beliefs of dispensationalism, and explaining the views that Dr. Ryrie takes in his book. Ryrie defines a dispensation as “a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose”. Ryrie clearly gives the definition of his view on dispensationalism and take on scripture in the word. In a dispensation God places people under a stewardship, people invariably failing the test, with a judgment and change. Dr. Ryrie clarifies many of the misunderstandings that opponents of premillennialism and dispensationalism have tried to show. So through out the book I found two main factors I believed that different dispensationalist from others. The first factor is a simple realization that there are differences in Scripture. The biggest difference is between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but there are also other differences. We read of a future Millennial kingdom in which Christ will reign on earth. Surely, things will be different during the Millennium. So the first issue that led to Dispensational thought is the realization that at different periods, God has dealt with man in different ways. Then is the second reason we are different I think from all other interpretations. Is because the reason that led to the progress of dispensational thought was a couple of verses in Ephesians, (Eph.1:9+10).
Dispensationalism forms a solid ground to how many Christians read and understand the Bible. One of the first points I seen reading the book was Ryrie clearly delineates dispensationalism keeps Israel and the church distinct which is the most basic fact of it today. Secondly, that the distinction between Israel and the church is a system of hermeneutics that is literal interpretation. Also something we teach here at BBC. One thing that Dr. Ryrie points out is that dispensationalism does not spiritualize or allegorize the text. Lastly the third main point seem to be a conception of the purpose of God as His own glory, rather than only one purpose and that being on salvation. Along with those issues there are a lot more that I had read about. One area I noticed was that Dr. Ryrie was worried about others thinking that God saved different ways in different times. Dispensationalism does not carry with it the idea of different ways of salvation. Dispensationalism has to do with God’s testing, not God’s redeeming. Dr. Ryrie pointed out a verse John 14:6, where Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”, which goes to show that salvation comes always through the complete work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Some of the beliefs derived from these principles or main points I have went over are six to seven main issues that was talked about in Dr. Ryrie’s book. So instead of talking at ends of all them, I’ll list them and give a brief description on each of the points he had talked about.
1. The Old Testament prophecies of the restoration of Israel to the land in the end time will be literally fulfilled.
2. The millennial kingdom will be literally fulfilled at Christ’s return after which Christ will reign on the earth for 1000 years.
3. The 70 weeks of Daniel refers to a period of 490 years and apply only to Israel. The first 69 weeks have been fulfilled historically, ending at the first coming of Christ. When the Jews rejected the Messiah, the 70 weeks were suspended and the Church age began. The Last or 70th week of Daniel, which is the last seven years, has yet to be fulfilled. This last week will immediately follow the second coming of Christ.
4. The book of Revelation after chapters one through five is a prophecy concerning some events that will happen during the last seven years before the 70th week. This 70th week is called the tribulation period. The last half of this week which is the last 3 and half years is the Great Tribulation spoken of in Dan. 9. This tribulation period is a time when God will pour out his wrath on a sinful world.
5. The coming of Christ will occur in two stages. The first stage will occur at the start of the seventh week. This will be Christ’s return for His saints to “rapture” his church. All of the Christians will be resurrected and taken to heaven and in which God has prepared for us. The church will not be here during the tribulation period because God has ended the Church age and resumed dealing with Israel. The second stage is Christ’s second coming at the end of the 7 year tribulation period with His saints to begin the millennial Kingdom age.
6. After the rapture and during the tribulation period we will see a return of the fourth worldly kingdom spoken of in Daniel. This fourth kingdom was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire will be restored in time for the tribulation and will consist of a confederation of 10 kings or kingdoms headed by the little horn of Daniel also known as the son of perdition. The falling away is the rapture that which restrains is the Holy Spirit whose taking away implies the absence of the church from the earth. The son of perdition who is the Anti-Christ; makes all who live on the earth that time being receives the mark of the beast.
7. So through out all these points time shows any where from five to seven dispensations. One definition of dispensation is a period of time during which a man is tested in respect of obedience to some revelation of the will of God.
These dispensations are:
Innocence Creation – Sin
Conscience Sin – Flood
Human Flood – Abraham
Promise Abraham – Moses
Law Moses – Jesus
Grace Church
Kingdom Millennium
A new period or dispensation starts when God begins a change in the ordinances valid up to that time. For example a number of ordinances are brought into the period at the time of Noah. At the coming of Christ many of the Mosiac Laws are canceled. The purpose of God in each dispensation is to have His own glory shown.
Also, in my reading I saw practical ways I could use dispensationlism to better myself in ministry and in my very own life:
Dispensationalism protects us from wrong or bad doctrine that is corrupt and could hurt our practice of the word.
Our understanding of dispensationalism helps us out with our church practice and ministry that we carry out in church today.
We as dispensationalists understand the distinction between the church and Israel. And were we fit into it and how we fit into it and when we fit into it.
We are saved from the problems of trying to hold fast to the Old Testament promises for ourselves or to assume that if we are faithful to God, He will give us what we want.
If we follow Covenant Theology, and believe that the church has replaced Israel, one is free to show the respect to a Jews or persecute a Jews as one wants to. Although we the dispensationalist sees that God was working with the Jews, is now working with the church, and will one day again work with the Jews again.
Lastly our worship is likely to be very different if we assume God’s highest purpose is to save us, rather than realizing like a dispensationalist does, that God’s highest purpose is to Glorify Himself. (you talked about this in class on Dec.1st)
I have seen how dispensationalism has come to be discovered and through noticeable differences in how God dealt with man. I have seen the 3 distinctions of dispensationalism. From different reasons on why we dispensationlist are different then covenant, to the different dispensations God has spent with man in order to Glorify Himself in and through people like me. Seeing how and when Christians get a solid foundation down to our theology and doctrine using it better helps me and helps me in ministry. More I have read and take classes is the more that I realize that its not about programs and ministries that will work but in the end but it is who are to live out the word correctly with our house, family, and church. And in that do what all I can to glorify Him everyday, and see and know that it is not about Gentiles or the Jews, but Him the lord, our creator and judge, Lord Jesus Christ.
Tattoos and the Bible
Posted: December 15, 2006 Filed under: Anthropology, Tattoos, Theology 4 Comments
One Bible Only?
Posted: December 15, 2006 Filed under: Book Review Leave a comment
In reading this book and writing this paper, I really do not know what to exactly say or get across. So I figured I would go over and hit some of the main issues that were talked about. Looking into each chapter and hitting what was talked about and went over just so I show you that I had read the book (I wanted some extra credit). I enjoyed the book and learned from it. I most accepted is the sense that the writers of this book are demanding common sense in this issue. I fully understand with them. This book’s brief layout takes the reader through the history of the KJV-only debate and delves into all the hot spots without resorting to putting down of making fun of like most Pro-KJV authors do. The truth of God’s inerrant Word shines through the book as we see the transnational process and preservation of our bibles today. So with out any more talking about what I had read or how I had read it, I will now list the chapters and the main points talked about in each of them.
1. Back ground and Origin of the Version Debate
In this chapter the writers begin to show how unalterable perfection had gathered around the Septuagint (LXX) by the year 100 B.C. Different authors like Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. to 45 A.D.), Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), and Justin Martyr (100-145 A.D. who was killed for his faith, all adding some work to the translations. Such as verbs, and self-same nouns so that things would work better for them. Other translations that were fixed to fit what the writer wanted are, the Latin Vulgate, Luther’s German bible, and believe it or not but the King James version. The impact of the King James only movement has influenced a view point that has become wide spread and very strong. Unfortunately the effects of this movement have often been very destructive. The King James movement has spilled over into mission fields, churches, ministries, and even schools. Accepting the tenets of the King James only movement has become a standard of orthodoxy for many people. This movement has been more destructive and distracted among Baptist than any controversy since the 19th century. The truth about the King James only movement has not created any new doctrines. All of the idea’s were exposed in the past for Bible versions such as: Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Syricaic and, German. Applying these old errors to any modern day English Version does not make them any less erroneous. One of the unsupported assumptions of some of the modern King James only movement is the claim that the LXX dates after the time of Christ and is the work of the origin of Alexander. Both Philo and Josephus are aware of and do not dispute an account of the origin of a Greek translation of the law as related in the letter of Aristeas.
2. O.T. Text
The great deal of debate about the Bible’s versions centers around the text of the New Testament. Not much is said about the Old Testament text. Chapter 2 focused on the development of the Old Testament text and the effect of the development of our English versions today. After 68 A.D. with the continued decline in the ability of the general populace to speak Hebrew and the factors such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the rise of Christianity, Jewish people became concerned about the Old Testament text. First the Masoeretic should not be perceived as a perfect copy of the original’s because it is late in recession. Because of the evidence of evolution in script spelling and vocabulary and the evidence of updating and smoothing of the text vocabulary it is impossible to suppose that the Jewish scholars in the first century restore all of the words in the original writings. Secondly one must remember the Masoertic family of texts, that family associated with the standardization of the Old Testament text. The King James version translators disclaimed perfect nation in any copied text including their own. In fact these translators ascribed perfection to the original text. The original being from Heaven and the author being God and not man. God by the process of inspiration produced through human agents a inerrant and complete text of truth.
3. N.T. Text
One of the reasons for confusion about the Bible translations is people fail to explain some of the terms used in the discussion about King James only. Some of the most important aspects of the New Testament were as addressed in this chapter. In comparison of books in the ancient world, we have an abundance of manuscripts in the New Testament text. Papyri refers to manuscripts of made of the papyrus plant they are in unical script. Because papyrus does not stand up as well as vellum, only about one hundred of these manuscripts have survived, most of them from Egypt. Unicals are manuscripts made up of animal skins and are written in capital letter script. Minuscules are written in a cursive script that has smaller connected letters. This script began to be used in the ninth century to save time and because the letters take less space than do unical letters.
Modern textual critics classify manuscripts in at least three text types: Majority, Alexandrian, and Western.
The Majority text type is the basis of the recently published Majority Text and the text type from which the Textus Receptus comes.
The Western text type is the least clearly defined of the three types. Evidence of this text type existed as early as A.D. 200, and it is the text type reflected in the earliest Christian writers in Palestine and Asia Minor.
The Alexandrian is the text type that is generally found in the earliest manuscripts, including most of the papyri. Some papyri with this text type date as early as the second century.
Since the invention of the printing press in the middle of the fifteenth century, hundreds of different text of the Greek New Testament have been published Three of them are at the center of the discussion of translations and texts today. The first one is the Electric Text. The Second is the Majority Text, and the Last one is the Textus Receptus.
The electric text is called electric because it is based on and uses all of the manuscripts and text types, and all important textual variants and displayed in the textual apparatus. It reflects a broader textual base than the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus and is based on the theory that the date and quality of manuscripts is more important than the number of manuscripts. The Majority Text, in 1982 the first Greek New Testament based on the Majority text type was published. The Textus Receptus is the title given to the 1633 version of the Greek text edited and first published by Erasmus in 1516. The translation from the Textus Recptus and the Hebrew to the King James version was not a simple and direct as some people might imagine.
In Conclusion the Greek texts, and the King James Version is intended to help answer some of the questions that honest readers have about the King James-Only position. One purpose of this chapter was to help the reader understand the difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. Another purpose of this chapter was to help those who are seeking the truth on this issue to see the false claims of anyone who says that King James version of the Textus Receptus is inspired or would argue that one of these texts is always better to all other and therefore must always be the closest to the originals.
4. Preservation of Scripture
Some of the Historical Problems are the proponents of the Textus Receptus/ Majority Text make the doctrine of preservation a necessary corollary of inspiration, and they seek to establish textual purity and public accessibility as necessary corollaries of preservation. In other words, preservation does not mean anything if the text is not accessible, and inspiration does not mean anything if the text is not purely preserved accessibly. The evidence from history, however, does not support their theory. If the Textus Receptus/Majority Text is God’s inspired Word, then according to their theory one would expect that is has been preserved in the majority of manuscripts throughout the history of the church. To argue that God has preserved His inspired Word through the ages only in the Majority/Byzantine text type is more realistic. However, this line of reasoning also has several problems. There are major gaps of history from which there is no evidence that the Majority text type even existed!. The historical evidence does not indicate that God has been supernaturally preserving the traditional text in every age. As we already mentioned, King James-Only advocates assume that preservation is a necessary corollary of inspiration and that for inspiration to be true, God must have perfectly preserved the New Testament text. Another unsupported assumption of the Textus Receptus/Majority Text advocates is the pursuit of “certainty” is identical to the pursuit of “truth.” Many Textus Receptus/Majority text advocates have given up hope of finding absolute textual certainty by means of the standard methods of textual criticism; therefore, they have opted for a simplistic methodology that will give them a settled and certain text, the Textus Receptus/Majority text. This argument has several problems, and several of the facts mentioned already in this chapter contradict it. First, if they are talking about the Textus Receptus then what edition is inspired? Second, how can it be the perfectly preserved Word of God if even a few of the readings in it never existed before 1516? Several logical problems arise in the arguments for the perfect preservation of God’s Word in the Textus Receptus text type. The first problem is the false assumption that perfect preservation is a necessary corollary of inspiration. A second false assumption is the belief that divine preservation must be found in the majority of manuscripts.
Historical evidence makes Biblical preservation abundantly clear. God has preserved His Word. The argument with King James-Only, Textus Receptus, and Majority Text proponents concerns two subsidiary issues. The first issue is that of God’s method of preserving His Word. We have addressed this topic already. The second issue is that of the Bible’s own teaching with regard to the preservation of God’s Word. Another group of passages sometimes used to support the doctrine of the perfect preservation of Scripture consists of verses that, in their context, speak of God’s infallible decrees and moral laws. The Scriptures do not teach that God has perfectly preserved every word of the original autographs in one manuscripts or text type. A proper understanding of the doctrine of preservation is a belief that God has providentially preserved His Word in and through all of the extant manuscripts, versions, and other copies of Scriptures. The how can we be sure that our Bibles are reliable? How can we maintain the authority of God’s Hold Word if we do not have a promise from God that He will preserve it perfectly? For several reasons we can have absolute confidence in the Bibles we have today. Let me summarize one of them. God has given us 5,656 manuscripts containing all or parts of the Greek New Testament. Obvious from the evidence of history is the fact that God has providentially preserved His Word for the present generation.
5. Translation Theory and Twentieth Century
The Textus Receptus as a Textual Bases, One position in reality, rejects any contemporary textual criticism. This view holds, in essence, that the first and last legitimate textual critic was Erasmus, who complied a Greek text from seven manuscripts in 1516. The final approach to textual criticism is the electric approach. The eclectic textual critic, using all of the available manuscripts, judges each instance of textual variation. The eclectic approach to textual criticism has become the most predominant text-critical method employed in recent history. In the opinion of many people, it is the most reasonable way to reconstruct, with confidence, the original text of the Bible. Formal Equivalence is a literal translation where one in which the translator seeks to reproduce, in the receptor language, the word order, sentence structure, and grammar of the source language. A literalistic, word-for-word translation has a distinct advantage over other translations on the spectrum. One must affirm, however, the no Bible translator holds to a strict application of the literal method of translation. Where do twentieth-century translations fit on the spectrum of translation theories, with formal equivalence on one end of the scale and paraphrases on the other? Beginning with the formal or literal end of the spectrum, the first prominent, modern translation, a revision of the King James Version, was the American Standard Version. Some of the concerns with the Revised Standard Version, both theological and linguistic, were addressed in the major revision of the RSV, the New Revised Standard Version. The NASB, like the RSV, was a revision of the ASV. The NASB is a literal translation produced by evangelical translators. Like the RSV, it is not nearly as literalistic as the ASV. The final literal translation to be considered is the New King James Version. The NIV is the first prominent modern version that is not a revision connected to the KJV. It was produced by an international team of English-speaking, evangelical scholars and its copyright is held by the International Bible Society. The American Bible Society has been and continues to be a proponent of dynamic equivalent translations. A significant indicant indication of this commitment was its publication of Today’s English Version, also marketed as the Good News Bible.
No sound argument exists for objecting to the individual who desires to use the KJV because of its beauty or for some equally important reason, However before one chooses a particular Bible to recommend to another person, especially a new believer, it might be wise to take this test. If a literal translation were the version of choice for serious study, the choice for evangelism and initial instruction in the Bible would probably be a dynamic equivalent translation. Paraphrases also have a place in the Christian’s library. These are excellent tools for introducing inquiring people to the Bible. They also provide a useful, running commentary on the text.
The centrality of the Gospel/Bible is…?
Posted: December 13, 2006 Filed under: Preaching/Speaking, The Gospel Leave a commentFirst off I am not stating that any of you believe this. Some of you might. Secondly, this is because of the lack of knowledge of Christology in today culture. This is my argument, that Jesus Christ is the center of the canon, and is the main message through out Gods working history with his people. Not individuals, like Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Peter, Paul, or even yourself. The main focus from Genesis to Revelation, the very center to the Gospel its self is Jesus Christ our redeemer.
For my argument, I have 5 passages I want to look at briefly and let you read them as I go over them, then we will spend the rest of our time on one more passage in Luke, which I believe to be one of the far most important claims in all of scripture.
First I want to look at Col.2:2-3…“all the treasurers” obviously includes all the truths of all the verses of scripture. All of them are hidden in Christ. I ask about this what is hard to understand about all?
Now secondly turn to John 1:1… This indicates that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. From the beginning to the end of the Word are manifestations of this incarnate Word being Christ. Rev. 19:13…and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
My third passage for my argument is 2 Cor.1:20… no matter how many promises God ever made, they were done in Christ. You understand every promise made by God is or will be fulfilled by Christ. Starting in Eden, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and to His church, every single one of the them either has been, is being, or will be fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
And fourthly, 1 Tim.2:5… this is by which we are saved and are able to listen to God without dying. Christ is indispensable for our right reception of scripture. And since scripture has the function of bringing men to God, it is fundamentally about Christ.
Now for my last passage to define my argument, one of the most profound claim/passage over the centrality of the bible made by Jesus Christ Himself. First turn to Luke 24:25-27…Here the disciples are on the road to Emmaus, felt defeat after Jesus’ crucifixion, Jesus stops and rebukes them in verse 25. Some people here in verse 27 believe Jesus is referring to Him and future events. But I do not here believe this is the case at all. I see here Jesus mention the beginning of the cannon with Moses and ending with what ends the O.T. the prophets. Here Jesus identifies himself as the beginning to the end of the O.T. being all about himself. Which you would say to that…the whole O.T. is about God working out salvation? Right? And I would then reply yes, salvation in which is founded only in our Savior Jesus Christ.
Now for the last part of this in Luke 24:44-47… I believe makes this claim more clear then anywhere in scripture. “the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” cover most if not all of the O.T. Jews broke the O.T. into three major parts; Law of Moses being the first five books, the Prophets included the former prophets, Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel and Kings, to the latter prophets in the back of the O.T. lastly the Writings included all the other writings not only referring to Psalms but all the rest of the writings in the O.T. Then Jesus opens their minds in verse 45 and 46 he says that “it was written” that the O.T. is about the work of Christ, in that it points forward to this work as what “must be fulfilled” which he said in verse 44.
Many of you if not all of you would agree with me when I make a statement like, “the N.T. is clearly about Jesus Christ, but most of you would either disagree or maybe never even thought of the statement, “the O.T. is the core of the N.T. and central to Christology. In no way do I want to force a Christ centric message into any text. But if you are not Christocentric in your O.T., then I would say that you are not understanding it rightly, nor are you understanding it the way Christ desired you to.
I end with this, for you that are going to be missionaries, I plead with you not to make Christ just merely some evangelistic message that you preach to lead people to Him. But Christ better be the center of your field…
Pastors, or soon to be youth workers, do not make Christ a message that is meant for big time events when a lot of people that are unsaved come. Christ better come out of the scriptures every single time you preach it. I ask you soon to be one day pastors this, “can you preach a message without mentioning Christ?”. If you say yes then we can talk later.
Fellow brothers whatever you do, in ministry, in your one day to be family, the church you serve, the times you teach, speak, and preach… if you forget about Christ, you have forgotten about the hope to your faith. Jesus Christ is your hope in which enables you to look and boast in the cross and not yourselves. I beg and plead with you for your futures, do not, please do not forget the center of the bible, do not forget the center of the gospel, and most of all do not forget the meaning of the reason your living,… which is…looking at Christ which shows you, (by the enabling of the Sprit) to Glorify God most.
The centrality of the Gospel/Bible is God revealing His gorily, through the work of His Son Jesus.
Beginning At Moses
Posted: December 12, 2006 Filed under: Book Review Leave a comment
if you would like to purchase this book click here: http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Moses-Finding-Christ-Testament/dp/1889893390/sr=1-1/qid=1165931791/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8665217-7421524?ie=UTF8&s=books
Gospel-Centered Musings 
