Biblical Theology Briefings - BeginningWithMoses.org

Site updated

2011-10-25T02:24:00.000+01:00

BWM has been updated with two new book reviews...enjoy!!!

BWM Updated

2011-07-08T02:32:00.000+01:00

BWM has been updated with two new articles on preaching by Rev. David Jackman.

BWM has been updated

2011-06-11T18:48:00.000+01:00

BWM has been updated with two new book blurbs and a review of J. Sailhamer's The Meaning of the Pentateuch. Enjoy!!!

Site Updated

2011-04-23T19:44:00.001+01:00

BWM has been updated with four new book blurbs!!! Enjoy and have a blessed Easter.

Rob Bell on Heaven and Hell

2011-03-15T20:52:00.002Z

In light of Rob Bell's forthcoming book Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, and the furore that has resulted in the blogosphere, BWM readers may find the following resource helpful: Where the Fires Are Not Quenched: Biblical, Theological & Pastoral Reflections on Hell.

New Site Feature

2011-03-05T13:42:00.002Z

The Story of a Kingdom material written by Jonny Gibson, previously hosted at www.sok.org.uk, has been relocated to BWM. The Leader's Guide, Booklet, and Powerpoint can be downloaded for free. This material can be accessed here.

The Story of a Kingdom (SOK) explains the Bible in a simple and understandable format, especially for those who have English as a second (or third) language. Though written primarily for international students, this book is suitable for new Christians and even young people who want to get a grasp of the Bible's big story.

SOK is presently being used in various parts of the world - UK, USA, Canada, South Africa, Ireland, Turkey, Singapore, Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand - and in different contexts, such as families, universities students, internationals, church home groups and in one-on-one discipleship relationships. Read some reviews from different parts of the world. The material has been translated into Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Turkish, and Cebuano/Visayan (in the Philippines).

Site Updated

2011-03-05T00:55:00.001Z

BWM has been updated with two articles and two book blurbs!!!

Book: The Sunshine of the Gospel (Richard Sibbes)

2011-02-05T14:54:00.000Z

Do you long for a heart affecting Christianity? Come find it with Richard Sibbes, a friend of the church who longs to see her betrothed to Christ. This is experiential evangelical Christianity at it's best.

I've been immersed in the works of Richard Sibbes for a while and decided to self-publish a modernised version of seven of his sermons. I've edited and formatted it, so the book feels like Sibbes but isn't quite as 17th Century as the original source material. He's the warmest and most accessible of the puritans, writing in with simple illustrations and a sweetness of attitude and language. I imagine this being a great book to read slowly and devotionally to warm your heart with Christ. I've added a short introduction and some brief applied footnotes along the way .

Cost: £5, plus postage. I hope you'll find it worth that.
It's bookstore quality production which I'm really happy with.
Use code NOSHADOW at checkout to get 20% off the book cost. You can usualy find Lulu discount codes via Google for between 10-25%. UK Postage for one copy is £2.99, making it £7.99 without a code, or £6.99 with a 20% off code.
If you order 25 copies postage falls to 79p per book (i.e. £5.79 a copy), so team up with others and then use a 20% off code and it'll be a bargainous £4.79!
Lulu print on demand and deliver in about a week.
If there are glitches in the typesetting etc, sorry! - it's the downside of not going via a publisher... Do let me know if you spot something and I'll fix it for future editions - doesn't help you but it'd bless someone else!

I genuinely think you'll love reading this, and if you do then by all means feedback your comments - I might stick an endorsements page in a future edition if you give me something quotable!
Buy: The Sunshine of the Gospel - via Lulu.com

BWM has been updated

2011-01-21T00:23:00.001Z

BWM has been updated with an article on the law in the NT, and two book blurbs/book reviews. Enjoy!!!

Site Updated

2010-12-18T01:08:00.003Z

BWM has been updated with two articles.

Site Updates

2010-12-07T01:23:00.001Z

BWM has been updated with three new book blurbs. All three of these books are valuable and important in their own right and definitely worth a good read.

Site Updates

2010-11-05T02:11:00.001Z

BWM has been updated with two new book blurbs and a helpful review of S. Dempster's "Dominion and Dynasty."

BWM is updated

2010-10-23T18:31:00.001+01:00

BWM has been updated with two new articles, including one by R. Yarbrough that provides some helpful cautions for the discipline of Biblical Theology.

Latest Updates

2010-10-08T13:14:00.004+01:00

Check out the latest updates at BWM! We've added a very helpful article on the Book of Isaiah, a review of "Worship by the Book," and an article on the benefits of reading the Bible redemptive-historically. Enjoy!

Key features to note at the new BeginningwithMoses website:

2010-09-01T22:25:00.003+01:00

Explore and enjoy

Key features to note at the new BeginningwithMoses website:

- the unique feature of Biblical Theology Briefing papers remains;
- we host a number of reviews of good biblical theology books;
- the site has a brand new design;
- the site will be updated regularly;
- the site now offers the option of following BWM on Facebook and Twitter.

Update coming on September 1st

2010-08-30T09:13:00.002+01:00

We're back online - so explore the archives - and on September 1st there will be new content online.

The Future of BeginningWithMoses.org

2009-11-19T22:47:00.000Z

It's been a long time since we last updated BeginningWithMoses.org - essentially because all our circumstances have changed since we set this project up seven years ago. With a not entirely clear timescale we're in the process of handing over the site to a new editorial team and waiting on a major technical overhaul which should make it all look shiny and work better.

Peter Leithart - Theology of Missions

2008-12-04T21:46:00.000Z

Leithart: at First Things:
...The Bible provides a theology of missions that is neither accommodation to existing culture nor total war that leaves the existing culture in smoking ruins. Mission is more like cultivation, a process of nurturing the hidden but unforeseen potential within a culture. Mission, we might say, is like water. Tertullian said, Nunquam sine aqua Christus—Christ is never without water. Neither is the Church; neither is her mission.

“Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided into four rivers” (Genesis 2:10). It is the Bible’s first reference to rivers, and the first use of the number four, a number that eventually becomes associated with universality—the four corners (Isaiah 11:12), the four winds (Daniel 7:2), the four cornerstones of a house, the four horns of the altar. Genesis 2:10 is the first missionary text in Scripture, the first hint that Eden’s garden is not destination but source, the first faint suggestion that Adam is to move from the garden to bring its life to the ends of creation....

Biblical Theology for Kids! The Bible is about God and what he has done.

2008-10-29T15:10:00.000Z

Now some people think the bible is a book full of rules, telling you what you should and shouldn’t do. The Bible certainly does have some rules in it. They show you how life works best. But the Bible isn’t mainly about you and what you should be doing. It’s about God and what he has done.

Other people think the bible is a book of heroes, showing you people you should copy. The Bible does have some heroes in it, but most of the people in the Bible aren’t heroes at all. They make big mistakes (sometimes on purpose), they get afraid and run away. At times they are downright mean.

No, the Bible isn’t a book of rules, or a book of heroes. The Bible is most of all a Story. It’s an adventure story about a young hero who comes from a far country to win back his lost treasure. It’s a love story about a brave Prince who leaves his palace, his throne – everything – to rescue the one he loves. Its like the most wonderful of fairy tales that has come true in real life!

You see, the best thing about this story is - its true. There are lots of stories in the Bible, but all the stories are telling one big story. The story of how God loves his children and comes to rescue them. It takes the whole bible to tell this story. And at the centre of the story, there is a baby. Every story in the bible whispers his name. He is like the missing piece in a puzzle – the piece that makes all the other pieces fit together; and suddenly you can see a beautiful picture.

And this is no ordinary baby. This is the child on which everything would depend. This is the child who would one day – but wait. Our story starts where all good stories start. Right at the very beginning….

ht: Ant Adams: Biblical Theology for Kids

Sabbath by Andrew Shead

2008-09-26T08:07:00.000+01:00

Sabbath in the Pentateuch - Genesis 2:1-3

‘Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their array, so that on the seventh day God had completed his work which he had done. He ceased on the seventh day from all his work which he had done, and God blessed the seventh day, and he sanctified it, because on it he ceased from all his work which God had created by making it’ (author’s translation).

There is no mention of the Sabbath here, nor of rest. Instead we read of the ‘seventh day’ of creation, and of God ‘ceasing’ from his work. We should be careful not to read back into this passage more than it actually says.

The passage begins by describing all the work of creation as ‘complete’, and associates this completion with the Seventh Day (the capitals differentiate this Day from any other seventh day). God’s ‘work’ is always carefully defined: the retrospective phrase ‘which he had done’ refers to the previous six days’ work only, as does the verb ‘created’ ( br ), which is picked up from 1:1 and reused to close the account. Was God doing another type of work on the Seventh Day, such as the work of sustaining his creation? We are not told (but cf . John 5:17).

‘Blessing’ is associated in Genesis 1 with fruitfulness and dominion, both of which are expressions of what it means to be created in the image of God ( 1:26 , 28 ). We may conclude from its use in v. 3 that, just as God blessed what he created, he also blessed the fact of his creation: its completeness and its ongoing existence.

When God ‘sanctified’ the Seventh Day because on it he ceased creating, he was not celebrating or commemorating days one to six, but declaring his new state of not creating to be blessed and holy . This is suggested by the close link between ‘God had completed’ and ‘he ceased’. The end of God’s creative work brought about a new type of time, blessed and set aside, presumably in order that what was created could now be. The Seventh Day was to be a day for fruitfulness, for dominion, for relationship.

The created order is not commanded to sanctify the Seventh Day; the reason given involves God alone. The creation simply moves into the Seventh Day by default.

Read the rest of this paper by Andrew Shead at BeginningWithMoses.org

Have you got the whole story - Mike Cain

2008-09-25T08:05:00.000+01:00

Whenever I am asked to give a series of apologetic talks I try and make it clear to those who have invited me that I am not coming just to win an argument about the reliability of the Bible or merely to leave people with the impression that the reality of suffering need not rule out the philosophical possibility of there being a God. I don't want people to walk away with the idea that theism is a plausible hypothesis; I want to confront people with the Christ who is Lord of the Universe. If people are going to feel the full force of His claim on their lives then they will need to see how he fits within the unfolding story of salvation from creation to new creation. It is as simple as that. They won't know how to make sense of the details of claims of Christ until we set those claims within the context of the unfolding story of the Bible. Because of this my habit has been to start any series of apologetic type talks with this overview of the Bible.

I do it with the following aims:

1) I want the Lord's revelation of Himself to set the agenda for the discussion. We may well have move on to issues such as the reliability of the Bible, suffering and pluralism, but if you start with God's agenda I have found people ask their questions in the light of what the Bible actually says rather than in the light of some documentary that they once saw on channel 4.

2) I want the first talk to set the context for the subsequent talks. So when we move on to, say, the problem of suffering or the uniqueness of Christ I want to be able to show people how to make sense of those things within the Bible's unfolding story. So, for example, when we talk about suffering, go from creation to new creation via the cross in a way that sets the problem of suffering firmly within the plan of salvation and underlines the coherence of the Christian world-view; when we talk about the uniqueness of Christ, show how it is the unfolding story of the Bible that painted the early church into a corner when it came to their convictions about who Jesus is.

3) I want to show people that the worldview of the Bible is coherent and that it does in fact make sense of the world. It is easy to get sucked into the sort of apologetics that assumes we just have to win the intellectual battle and so spend all our time "clearing away the intellectual barriers that prevent people from approaching the Gospel" without ever getting round to proclaiming the Gospel itself. I t is the Gospel that is compelling and which melts hearts and transforms minds, so this talk is an attempt to usher people through the "intellectual barriers" and show them the view from the other side - to show them what the world looks like when you look at it through the lens of the Gospel. It does, of course, give rise to questions and objections, but it means that when we revisit the "intellectual barriers" people know what is at stake and, we pray, the power of the Gospel is at work in them because they have, at least seen the view.

4) I want to show people that we are not talking about a bit of private spirituality that can be slotted into your existing worldview, but that when we are talking about the claims of Christ we are talking about the one by whom and for whom all things were made. Calling people to turn to Christ means calling people to turn from their old worldview and to embrace a whole new one that has Christ at its centre. Doing apologetics in a "biblical theological" sort of a way, means we are constantly talking to people on the level of total world view and not giving them a handful of spiritual fragments to make of which what they will.

5) Doing apologetics in a "biblical theological" sort of way means we are underlying the fact that our God is the God of history who has stepped into history and is taking history to its climax. He is not the result of philosophical speculation - which is the impression that some apologetics can leave you with.

Read the rest of this paper by Mike Cain at BeginningWithMoses.org

Adam in Romans by Jonathan Gibson

2008-09-24T08:02:00.000+01:00

This paper discusses the degree of Adam’s importance in the argument of Romans. It commences with a presentation of the purpose and argument of the epistle, followed by a brief assessment of allusions to Adam in 1:18-23 and 7:7-12, before focussing in on the connections of 5:21-21 to various parts of the letter. In doing so, the measure of Adam’s importance is explored in six sections of Romans: 1:18-4:25, 5:1-11, 5:12-21, 6:1-8:39, 9:1-11:36 and 12:1-15:13. It is concluded that whilst scholars assert Adam’s importance in the letter, they do not deal explicitly with the degree of his importance, thus highlighting the need for further research in this area. This paper concludes that Adam is of foremost significance in the edifice of Paul’s argument to ensure a correct understanding of the gospel – and also the law – in order to bring unity to the church at Rome.

The seventeenth century Puritan, Thomas Goodwin, said, ‘In God’s sight there are two men – Adam and Jesus Christ – and these two men have all other men hanging at their girdle strings.’ Whilst most commentators assert Adam’s importance in the argument of Romans, this essay will explore the degree of his importance. We concur with Kreitzer that the Apostle Paul assumes Adam’s historicity and therefore this will not be our concern; neither will the issue of original sin. After presenting Paul’s purpose and argument, followed by a brief discussion on the passages concerning allusions to Adam, we will focus in on 5:12-21 and its connections to the argument of Romans. In doing so, the measure of Adam’s importance will be presented, along with some concluding reflections.
Paul’s purpose in writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in Rome is multi-faceted: self-introduction (1:1-6); strengthen the church (1:11; 16:25); explain the gospel, particularly in relation to the role of the law (1:1-5, 15-17; 3:19-20, 31; 5:13-14, 5:20; 7:7-25; 8:2-4); resolve the Jew / Gentile conflict and bring unity (3:22, 29-30; 11:17-24; 12:3-13, 16-18; 15:1-7); ensure support for his Spanish mission (15:23-24).

Paul’s argument in Romans is united by the overriding theme of the gospel, which frames both ends of the letter (1:1, 9, 15; 15: 16, 19; 16:25). At the heart of the epistle is the issue of Jew / Gentile conflict in the church, and in particular the Jewish opponents who accused Paul of proclaiming a fictional gospel of justification that was outside the realm of proof, required no change in one’s life, and provided no security for the future.

Read the full paper by Jonny Gibson at BeginningWithMoses.org

Why the law then? A Biblical Theology of Law in Galatians (Chris Poteet)

2008-09-23T08:01:00.000+01:00

There is arguably no issue more fiercely debated within orthodox evangelicalism as that of Paul's teaching regarding the Christian and law.1 The debate has been around for centuries, and I am no position to say that I have come to an understanding that has been absent in church history. Actually, my understanding of the relation of law and gospel is similar to that of the reformers—in particular Martin Luther. He saw that the Mosaic Law had a temporal role in God’s plan of redemption, and he tended to stress what is commonly called the "second use" of the Law which is to drive the unbeliever to Christ.

Paul, I believe, espoused this position in his monumental letter to the Christians at Galatia. In chapters 3-6, he gives us a redemptive-historical perspective on the purpose of the Mosaic Law and life led by the Spirit in the New Covenant. Correctly understanding this perspective can, I believe, move Christians who are divided on the issue to a more fruitful discussion.

The structure of this essay revolves around my exegesis of Galatians 3:23-25. I will first provide the background of Galatians, and I will then analyze 3:23-25 through exegesis and contrasting various positions in Christendom on this passage. The essay concludes with a discussion on life in the Spirit over the age of Law and the Law of Christ as Paul explains in chapters 4-6.

Continue reading Why the law then, by Chris Poteet at BeginningWithMoses.org. Chris Poteet blogs at Imperishable Inheritance.

Assumed Evangelicalism: reflections en route to denying the gospel (David Gibson)

2008-09-22T08:01:00.000+01:00

You may have heard the story of the Mennonite Brethren movement. One particular analysis goes like this: the first generation believed and proclaimed the gospel and thought that there were certain social entailments. The next generation assumed the gospel and advocated the entailments. The third generation denied the gospel and all that were left were the entailments.

Another story. In 1919, Trinity Great Court in Cambridge saw a meeting between Rollo Pelly, the Secretary of the liberal Student Christian Movement, and Daniel Dick and Norman Grubb (President and Secretary of the evangelical Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union). The meeting was to discuss the re-unification of the two movements that had split in 1910. Norman Grubb's account of the meeting is infamous:

After an hour's talk, I asked Rollo point blank, 'Does the SCM put the atoning blood of Jesus Christ central?' He hesitated, and then said, 'Well, we acknowledge it, but not necessarily central.' Dan Dick and I then said that this settled the matter for us in the CICCU. We could never join something that did not maintain the atoning blood of Jesus Christ at its centre; and we parted company.'

In its earliest days the SCM believed and proclaimed the atoning blood of Jesus. The next generation assumed it but did not make it central. The following generations have rejected and denied the apostolic gospel.

Proclaiming, assuming, denying. This description of a movement's history is admittedly something of a caricature - any such development would always be the result of many complex factors. Nevertheless, it is a useful way of attempting to identify defining decisions that profoundly shape a movement's evolution and it has lessons for us about the dangers and challenges facing other similar movements.

In this article, I want to suggest that evangelicalism - Christianity that gets its definition from the gospel, the good news (Greek: the evangel) - is exactly one such 'movement', and to try to examine what evangelicalism in the middle stage, the assumed stage, looks like. This article suggests that individuals, churches, movements and institutions that use the name evangelical, and which are therefore claiming an important commitment to the gospel, are all susceptible to the very subtle drift that can take place from proclaiming through assuming to denying the gospel.

Let me suggest a definition:

Assumed evangelicalism believes and signs up to the gospel. It certainly does not deny the gospel. But in terms of priorities, focus, and direction, assumed evangelicalism begins to give gradually increasing energy to concerns other than the gospel and key evangelical distinctives, to gradually elevate secondary issues to a primary level, to be increasingly worried about how it is perceived by others and to allow itself to be increasingly influenced both in content and method by the prevailing culture of the day.

Continue reading Assumed Evangelicalism by David Gibson at BeginningWithMoses.org

Song of Songs: A Biblical Theology (Ros Clarke)

2008-09-19T08:00:00.001+01:00

Modern churchgoers may be surprised to learn that the Song of Songs was once one of the most preached and commented on book of the Bible. Tremper Longman makes the observation that nowadays the Song is rarely taught at all and my own experience reflects this. In over fifteen years of regular churchgoing, I have never yet heard a sermon on the Song and only once heard it taught at all, in the context of a talk on ‘Relationships,’ aimed at students. Longman is rightly concerned by this apparent ‘functional decanonization’ of the Song. In the light of Paul’s claim that ‘All Scripture is... profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness,’ the present situation suggests that the church is missing out.

David Carr links the disuse of the Song with the widespread rejection of allegorical interpretations from the mid-nineteenth century. There have been various methods of interpretation suggested as replacements; that which has gained most support in recent years is the so-called ‘literal’ approach. While there are reasons to reject some of the methodology involved in traditional allegorical interpretations, this study will show that there are good grounds to support their instinctive reading of the Song as an exposition of the divine-human relationship rather than primarily as a reflection on human marriage.

Read the rest of Song of Songs: A Biblical Theology by Ros Clarke at BeginningWithMoses.org

Another Biblical Theology Blog

2008-09-18T21:53:00.000+01:00

Biblical Theology: “. . . all the prophets . . . proclaimed these days . . .” -Acts 3:24 by T.Desmond Alexander, Michael Bird, Jim Hamilton and Stephen Dempster

On answering a fool: making sense of the book of proversbs (Tim Chester)

2008-09-18T08:00:00.001+01:00

Proverbs are rules of thumb reflecting belief in a created order

Decisions, decisions. Many people find making decisions hard. Yet we have to make decisions every day of our lives. Wisdom is the ability to make good decisions. Wisdom is working out what is the right thing to do. The book of Proverbs offers helpful guidance for making wise decisions and living godly lives. They are practical: they have to do with ordinary life.

Compare Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5:
* Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. (26:4)
* Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.(26:5)

These two proverbs show that proverbs are not universally or absolutely true. They are general statements - not iron clad certainties. They are rules of thumb. They may not apply in all circumstances.

Proverbs often involve:
* consequences: ‘ ... for ...’
'Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags' (23:20-21)
* comparison: ‘Better ... than ...’
'Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred' (15:17)
* observations on life - often without moral comment
'A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds' (17:8)

Peter Misselbrook says: Wisdom is not an exclusively Biblical phenomenon but was a particular type of thought and of writing which was common to the world of the Ancient Near East. For a man's life to be prosperous and happy it is necessary that he should know something about the world in which he lives, the way in which it functions and the laws by which it is governed. The wisdom of the Ancient Near East is therefore not an abstract philosophy but a system of practical rules for life. It is concerned with the way in which a man must act in order to live well in the world and to prosper. Wisdom therefore begins with careful observations on the world, the world of men and the world of 'nature', and through observation seeks to learn something of the way things work. At the most basic level, man observes that there are regularities in the processes of the world and that to prosper one must recognise these and conform one's behaviour to the demands of the physical world.

So, for example, in Proverbs 24:30-34 we see that the person who fails to tend the ground properly will fail to get a crop. Proverbs, however, reflect a particular way of looking a the world; a particular ‘worldview’. They look at ordinary life from a specific perspective.

The Worldview of Proverbs: A Created Order

The world was made by God. 'By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place' (3:19). And so there is order in the world: God is in control. Disorder has messed up that order to some extent (more of that later), but there is still order in the world. ‘The world is not driven about by erratic, arbitrary and accidental forces, but is maintained and directed by the order which Yahweh established at creation’. Therefore we can see in the world purposeful design – the creative hand of God.

Read the rest of On Answering a Fool at BeginningWithMoses.org. Read Tim Chester's blog.

Hermeneutics and Christ (Graeme Goldsworthy)

2008-09-17T08:00:00.000+01:00

HERMENEUTICS has been one of the big topics of the last 25 years. A seemingly endless series of books has been produced and academic papers written.

However, 'hermeneutics' is not only the preserve of academia. The Christian who says "I'm just a simple Bible-believer" can be just as adept at imposing an interpretation on the text as the most sophisticated theologian. Nor is 'hermeneutics' an entirely modern question. Christians have always struggled with how to read and apply the Bible, and have adopted various ways of doing so.

In fact, the history of how Christians have read and applied the Bible is most instructive, especially if we take note of what was really happening in the various historical developments. What we find repeatedly is that when people were asking 'What do we think about the Scriptures?' they were really asking 'What do we think about Christ?'. This is because what we think about the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, will run parallel with what we think about the inscripturated Word of God, the Bible.

The apostolic answer to the hermeneutical question is the correct one: Jesus Christ is the God-man, saviour and Lord, to whom the apostles and all the Scriptures testify. This means that the objective historical Jesus is in fact the content of the gospel message and the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16). The apostle's answer comes from taking seriously the fact that Jesus claims to be the truth. There is a sense in which the apostles understood the Old Testament as providing the substructure of the gospel - and so the Old Testament helps us understand the New Testament. But the main thrust of the New Testament is on the person of Jesus as the one who makes clear what the Old Testament is all about. So the apostle's hermeneutical position is that the gospel is the power of God for interpreting the Bible.

Read the rest of Hermeneutics and Christ at BeginningWithMoses.org

God with Men in the Torah (James Hamilton)

2008-09-16T08:00:00.000+01:00

Were Old Covenant saints indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Assuming that John 7:39 teaches that the Holy Spirit would not continually indwell believers until after the cross, this study seeks to establish what the Pentateuch does and does not say about the presence of God with regard to its faithful. Herein we seek todemonstrate two things. First, that God’s presence with his people is a pervasivereality in the Pentateuch. Second, that God creates his Old Covenant remnantby revealing himself and maintains it by abiding with his people.

These two points are significant because in the OldTestament there is a direct correlation between the favorable presence of God and the well-being of hispeople, physical as well as spiritual. The upshot of this is that the Old Testamentdoes not conceive of God creating and keeping a believing remnant by hisSpirit’s dwelling in each individual member of the remnant. God’s dwelling place in the Old Testament is in the midst of his people, but in the midst of themmeans in the tabernacle and later the temple, not in their individual bodies.

The contention of this study is that God’s self-disclosure and his favorable presence with his people constitute the Pentateuch’s description of how the Old Covenant faithful became and remained believers. It is clear in the New Testament that the New Covenant faithful become and remain believers because they are regenerated and indwelt by God’s Spirit (e.g., Gal 3:3; Rom 8:9-11). Some infer that, ‘‘Since He keeps the New Testament saint by indwelling . . . it seems reasonable to believe that He kept the Old Testament saint in the same way.’’ One of the working hypotheses of the present study is that John 7:39 forbids this inference.

The New Testament indicates that Old Covenant believers were not indwelt, and the claim of this study is that the Old Testament does not explicitly teach that they were. Nevertheless, there is evidence that, whatever means heemployed, it was God who enabled Old Covenant believers to have and maintain faith. For example, God tells Elijah that he (God) will cause 7,000 to remain who have not worshiped Baal (1 Kgs 19:18). The thesis of this study is that the means God employed to preserve his remnant were his word (i.e., his self-revelation) and his presence....

Read the God with Men in the Torah by James Hamilton, at BeginningWithMoses.org

Exegeting Little Bo Peep

2008-09-15T23:04:00.000+01:00

Pyromaniacs:

John MacArthur used to say if you're using Scripture as a springboard to say whatever you want rather than teaching your people what the Bible actually says, you might as well exegete "Little Bo Peep." And he did a 90-second parody of how that could be done using the style of preaching so many contemporary evangelicals seem to favor. MacArthur, of course, was using a classic reductio argument, employing an example no one (or so we thought) would ever seriously consider imitating. Here's an audio clip:

Peter Adam argued compellingly for Expository Preaching (of Scripture) at BeginningWithMoses.org

ESV Study Bible Interview: with Dr Vern Poythress for BeginningWithMoses.org (Part 2)

2008-09-15T03:00:00.006+01:00

6. Calvin says in Institutes II.x.2 that the Jews ‘had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and share in his promises’. You suggest that ‘The instances of salvation in the OT all depend on Christ’. Could you explain how Christ was Saviour of the OT saints, and whether you understand this in the same sense as Calvin, i.e. the Jews actually knowing Christ?

I agree with what Calvin said. Christ was presented to OT saints both through God’s promises of future salvation and through types (shadows) that prefigured his work, such as animal sacrifices, priests, the exodus, and other instances of deliverance. And even when Christ is not directly mentioned, God reckoned with Christ’s work when he forgave OT saints and when he blessed them in spite of their failings. The benefits of Christ’s mediation were already being made available. The saints in the OT had faith in Christ as the coming climactic deliverer. But they knew less about him that we can know now when we look back on his completed redemption.

"Christ was presented to OT saints
both through God’s promises of future salvation
and through types (shadows) that prefigured his work"

7. For someone coming to biblical theology from a world strongly oriented to systematic theology, how would you explain the differences and the relationship between the two disciplines?

Different people have had different conceptions of both biblical theology and systematic theology, so it is wise to ask what people mean in both areas, as well as to look at the relation between the two areas. I would myself describe systematic theology as study of the Bible’s teaching in which we try to synthesize and then summarize what the Bible as a whole teaches about all kinds of topics—God, man, Christ, sin, salvation, and so on.

In some contexts the expression “biblical theology” simply means theology built on the Bible; that is, it is systematic theology done in the right way. But there is also another possible meaning. Biblical theology, as described by Geerhardus Vos, studies the Bible with a focus on its history, the history of revelation and of redemption. Whereas systematic theology is topically organized, biblical theology is historically organized. It looks at the progress of God’s work and his revelation through time. In addition, biblical theology more broadly conceived can study the themes that are distinctive to a particular book of the Bible, or to books written by a single human author (for example, Paul’s letters).

"At their best, biblical theology and

systematic theology interact

and help to deepen one another."

At their best, biblical theology and systematic theology interact and help to deepen one another. Systematic theology provides doctrines of God’s sovereignty, of revelation, of God’s purposes, and of the meaning of history that supply a sound framework of assumptions for the work of biblical theology. Biblical theology at its best deepens the appreciation that systematic theology should have for the way in which, in interpreting individual texts and in uncovering their relation to a whole topic, the context of texts within the history of redemption colors the interpretation. Biblical theology may also bring to light new themes that can be the starting point for systematic-theological explorations into new topics that can receive fuller attention. For instance, the theme of life and death as it develops in the course of the history of revelation can become the starting point for discussing ethical questions about modern medicine and the issue of euthanasia.

8. Can you comment on what you think the main dangers are in reading the Bible without a grasp of its big picture?

If we do not think deeply about the big picture that the Bible provides, we are likely in practice either not to think about big pictures at all, or to take our big picture directly from some modern worldview like evolutionary naturalism. And then that corrupts our understanding of the Bible.

Even if we do not think about big pictures at all, it does leave us vulnerable to being influenced in a “subterranean” way by modern worldviews. For example, the knowledge industry (media, education, advertising) in modern America is in some ways very materialistic. According to one dominant view, life is about wealth and power and pleasure. God and angels and demons are irrelevant. You don’t have to think explicitly about philosophy in order to be influenced by this atmosphere. Then, without knowing it, you come to the Bible with expectations that are colored by your modern environment. You misread the significance of some of what you read, or you are prejudiced without knowing it about some of the Bible’s claims about the spirit world and about what really matters.

The same goes for the “big picture” that we use with respect to the meaning of history. Does history go on and on until the human race simply dies out or is evolutionarily transmuted into some higher form of animal, as evolutionary naturalism would claim? Or does it culminate in the Second Coming of Christ? It makes a difference as to what kind of world you think you live in. And can a single event in history, namely the resurrection of Christ, have redemptive effects on people who are far separated from it in time? The Bible says yes, but modern rationalistic thinking about history says no.

9. Can you tell us about the biggest influences on your own grasp of Scripture’s coherence? What would feature on your essential reading list here, and why?

My outstanding mentor in understanding the history of salvation was Edmund P. Clowney. He has now gone to be with the Lord, but his books are still a great help, because they articulate the Christocentric character of all of the Bible. I think of Preaching and Biblical Theology (Eerdmans, 1961), The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the OT (NavPress, 1988); Preaching Christ in All of Scripture (Crossway, 2003), and The Church (InterVarsity Press, 1995). Then there are major works in biblical theology: Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Eerdmans, 1948); O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Baker, 1980); Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962); Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987).

I think that systematic theology, as well as biblical theology, contributes to our appreciation of the unity of the Bible. Even before going to seminary, I was influenced by John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, and by systematic thinkers like J.I. Packer (Knowing God, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, and Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God). My whole time studying at Westminster Theological Seminary further deepened my understanding of Scripture’s coherence.

Dr. Poythress, thank you for answering our questions on biblical theology. We are sure our readers will benefit greatly from them.

ESV Study Bible Interview with Dr Vern Poythress for BeginingWithMoses.org (Part 1b)

2008-09-09T07:59:00.004+01:00

Continuing our interview with Vern Poythress:

4. Your essay provides a very helpful explanation of one aspect of the covenant promises—the promise of offspring to Abraham. There are also specific promises to Abraham about land, and concerning God’s rule or blessing. Could you tease out the biblical theology of these two facets just as you have done for the ‘offspring’ theme?

Galatians 3:7 indicates that those who believe in Christ are “the sons of Abraham.” That is an instance of the theme of offspring. Christ is the principal offspring of Abraham, according to Gal. 3:16. And then when we trust in Christ, we are united with him, and we receive what he has accomplished for us. Since he is Abraham’s offspring, we are too. Since he receives “the blessing of Abraham” (Gal. 3:8, 14), we do too. Since he is an heir of Abraham, we are too: “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).

The language of inheritance in Galatians has a close relation to God’s giving of the land of Palestine to Abraham. The land was inherited by his descendants, and passed down from father to son. The passing down goes all the way down the genealogical lines until it comes to Christ, who inherits everything: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Cor. 1:20). Christ inherits not only Palestine, but the whole earth, of which Palestine was a type or shadow: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, we who belong to Christ inherit the earth: “For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:21–23). Thus, those who belong to Christ inherit with him—both the status of being sons, inheritance of the land, and fullness of blessings.

Are these blessings only “spiritual”? Abraham himself came to understand that the blessings of fellowship with God were eternal, and were not exhausted by merely temporary material blessings:

“These [including Abraham] all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Heb. 11:13–16)

We too look forward to the same city, the heavenly Jerusalem, which comes down to the earth and so includes the dimension of physicality, and includes a physical resurrection in a new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1–2). While we are in this life, we will have tribulation—as did Abraham (Acts 14:22).

In sum, we can say that through Christ the Israelite we inherit the land and all its blessings, which are ultimately tokens of God’s favor. But we must wait patiently and suffer in this life, looking forward to possessing that full inheritance and the fullness of blessings in the new earth.

5. You also have some excellent material on Christ in the OT, and Christ as Mediator. What practical difference should a passage like Luke 24:25–27 have on our reading of the OT? For instance, does it mean that we should try to discern in every single OT passage lines of connection to Christ? Can you give some guidance here on when, where and why Christological connections are valid?

The theme of mediation in the OT is one of the most important aids to seeing how Christ is there in the OT. In the OT, God was holy and the people were sinful. A major difficulty! How can God meet sinful people without destroying them? (The question is pointedly exemplified in Ex. 33:20.) Only through Christ. So all God’s relations to people after the Fall depend on Christ. We know that the principle of Christ’s mediation is true theologically, even when the text does not explicitly mention the difficulty created by sin. The necessity for Christ’s mediation in God’s relations in the OT gives us a good start in understanding the OT Christologically. And then there are specific persons and institutions that function in a mediatorial role, such as prophets, kings, the tabernacle, the temple, the altar, and the sacrifices.

In addition to this principle of mediation, I think there are several other helps to guide our understanding of the OT. (Our ultimate help is of course the Holy Spirit.)

First, what we find in any one passage of the Bible should be consistent with what the Bible teaches elsewhere. The most important check on our ideas is Scripture itself. Whenever the NT quotes from the OT to show a connection to Christ, we have an important starting point for our own reading of the OT. Something that we think may be hinted at in one passage should be checked out by what Scripture teaches clearly in other places. The Bible alone has infallible authority. Both our own ideas and the ideas of others have to be sifted by the Bible as our standard.

"what we find in any one passage
of the Bible should be consistent
with what the Bible teaches elsewhere."

Second, the Bible shows the progressive character of revelation. What was promised in the OT is spoken of more fully and openly in the NT (Eph. 3:4–6; Heb. 1:1–3). So we should not be finding in the OT any fundamentally new teaching that is not found in the NT.

Third, we need to pay attention to the immediate context of a passage, as well as the context of the whole Bible. Do not just look at a single word, or a single verse, but ask how what is said at one point fits into the context of God’s relation to Israel, and into his whole plan. As a negative example, consider the proposal that any time we find a tree or wood in the OT, it points to the cross. Is that right? We do believe that Christ died on a cross, and the truth about the cross must be connected with the OT. But we can also feel a certain arbitrariness in just drawing a line directly from the cross to wood. Why? Because we should be asking what role wood plays in its context.

The beams of the tabernacle were made of acacia wood (Ex. 26:15–30). That is not wood in the role of execution (the cross), but wood in the role of holding things up and giving them firm structure. I believe that the tabernacle is related symbolically to the OT picture in which God the Creator builds the whole world as his large-scale house (Ps. 104:2; Amos 9:6). It points then to God’s wisdom as builder, and to his own firmness and faithfulness, which is behind the stability of our world order. At the same time, the tabernacle offers us that same wisdom and faithfulness and stability when we approach God for forgiveness and fellowship, in the context of our need for redemption. The stable structure of the tabernacle points to Christ as the wisdom of God (Col. 2:3), who is faithful and who gives us stable forgiveness. “He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). And of course the tabernacle points forward to Christ’s body, which is the final tabernacle (John 2:19), which God “built up” again in the resurrection.

Fourth, we should be open for God to teach us in ways that surprise us and convict us. If you are just finding the same thing in the Bible every time that you read about wood, you are not really learning anything new, and you are not open to the transforming things you will find when you really listen carefully, paying attention to the context and asking God to teach you.

Fifth, we should pay attention to the body of Christ. Suppose that you see some new idea as you are thinking about the acacia wood in the tabernacle. Can you share your new idea with other members of the body, so that they can profit? For them to profit, you have to be able to some extent to “connect the dots.” With acacia wood and the cross, other people are not going to be able to see the connection, because you can’t produce a step-by-step path. It seems arbitrary (other than the fact that both are wood). If, on the other hand, you go from the tabernacle to Christ’s body, or from the tabernacle to Christ’s wisdom, you have a way of showing others that your ideas come from the Bible itself. Other people’s confirmation of your ideas is important, because none of us is infallible. In this connection, humility is important. Do not get enamored with your own cleverness!

"It is not fashionable nowadays,

but I confess that I do believe that
every passage, and even every word,
of the OT reflects Christ"

It is not fashionable nowadays, but I confess that I do believe that every passage, and even every word, of the OT reflects Christ. At a minimum, we expect it to be so because Christ is God. God is three Persons, and all three Persons are present whenever God speaks in the OT. So Christ is present. Moreover, God’s speaking in the OT is mediated speaking. It must be, or else we as sinners would die as a result of hearing him. In addition, John 1:1 identifies Christ as the eternal Word, by whom all things were made. The Word is the source of order for the whole of creation, including the order of language, even down to its details. But I hope that these observations of mine are the opposite of arbitrariness. I am intending to suggest paths that the Bible itself opens for us for our meditation.

The Types and Shadows

2008-09-09T07:55:00.000+01:00

The new song of the week: Red Mountain Music's version of Hark, the Voice of Love and Mercy, with a slight and very helpful edit to the lyrics about the law by Dan Hames. PDF: Sheet Music of Hark the Voice of Love and Mercy

Hark! the voice of love and mercy sounds aloud from Calvary;
see, it rends the rocks asunder, shakes the earth, and veils the sky:
'It is finished! 'It is finished!' hear the dying Savior cry.

'It is finished! O what pleasure do the wondrous words afford!
heavenly blessings without measure flow to us from Christ the Lord:
'It is finished! 'It is finished!' saints the dying words record.

Finished all the types and shadows of the law that went before,
Finished all that God had promised; death and hell no more shall awe;
'It is finished! 'It is finished!' Saints, from hence your comfort draw.

Tune your harps anew, ye seraphs, Join to sing the pleasing theme,
his great finished work proclaim; Saints on earth and all in heaven
Join to praise Immanuel's name: Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Glory to the bleeding Lamb!

Words: Jonathan Evans and Benjamin Francis , edited by Dan Hames

ESV Study Bible Interview with Dr Vern Poythress for BeginingWithMoses.org (Part 1)

2008-09-08T03:00:00.007+01:00

Dr. Poythress, thank you for your excellent ‘Survey of the History of Salvation’ in the ESV Study Bible, and also for the chance to ask you some questions.

1. In your essay you raise the issue of the Bible’s unifying thread. You suggest that one unifying thread is the divine authorship of each book. What would you say are the other main unifying threads, and do you think there is any one main category or concept which stands out as more foundational than the others?

In one way the divine authorship of each book is the most basic unifying thread, because it is what produces all the others. In addition, the comprehensive unity to the Bible derives from the unity of God’s mind and his plan. But there are many subordinate unifying threads: salvation through Christ, foreshadowed in the OT; promise and fulfillment; the consistency of God’s character, including his love, mercy, justice, omniscience, sovereignty, and truthfulness; the presence of sin and the struggle against it; judgment on wickedness and reward for righteousness; the theme of deliverance; covenant; mediators; God’s presence, especially in theophany, tabernacle, and temple; sacrifice; communion with God; the word of God; death and resurrection; wisdom from God; faith, love, and hope; justification and sanctification.

The editors of the ESV Study Bible asked me to write about the history of salvation, not only because it is an important unity, but because it is sometimes neglected or misunderstood. We now have before us the complete Bible, but God caused the books within it to be written over a period of centuries, during which he was speaking and working in preparation for the coming of Christ. We need to take into account how God works out his plan of salvation in successive stages. The theme of promise and fulfillment, and especially of fulfillment in Christ, is very important for enriching our understanding of what God is saying and doing in the OT. We could also mention the themes of covenant, of mediators (prophets, kings, and priests), and of type and antitype. These themes help us both to understand the theological and Christocentric unity of the whole Bible and to understand in what ways God unfolds his work gradually. OT readers could grasp the fundamental meaning of animal sacrifice, and how it looked forward to a final sacrifice for sins. But they did not understand all the details of Christ’s work. We look back on his completed work, and from this later vantage point, aided by explicit teaching in the NT, we have the privilege of understanding more deeply than OT saints did.

2. Two leading contenders for keys to the Bible’s unity are covenant, and the kingdom of God. Do you think either of these is more dominant, and how would you express the relationship between covenant and kingdom?

The Bible is so rich that we can begin to uncover riches no matter where we start. Covenant and kingdom of God are both fruitful starting points. But people have used these two expressions in more than one way, because they can discover within the Bible riches at more than one level.

For example, “covenant” can be used for the specific agreements or verbal compacts that God makes with particular people, like Noah, Abraham, and David. The same term “covenant” can also be used in modern discussion in a generalizing way, to talk about the unifying patterns that characterize all God’s relations with human beings, not simply those that the Bible happens to call a “covenant.” I think these two viewpoints can be treated as perspectives on one another. The particularities of God’s care for Abraham, and his promises to Abraham, are pertinent to us who through Christ have become Abraham’s sons (Gal. 3:7, 29). The particularities become a window or perspective through which God enables us to see the general pattern of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3) and what has been called “the covenant of grace.” The “covenant of grace” is a label for the one way of salvation through faith in Christ, as that one way is worked out through the whole of history, and it designates the consistent pattern of relationship between God and man that this one way of salvation includes.

“Kingdom of God” can also be used in more than one way. It may describe God’s universal rule over the whole world, from beginning to end: “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Ps. 103:19). Or, more narrowly, it may focus on Jesus’ announcement of the coming of the kingdom of God such as was promised in the OT. The expression may then describe the climactic acts that the OT predicts, when God acts in power to bring salvation, especially through the death, resurrection, ascension, and on-going rule of Christ at God’s right hand (Eph. 1:21–22). These different meanings can become perspectives on one another. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is one particular instance of God’s sovereignty, a sovereignty that he displays everywhere and through all time. But it is a climactic instance that throws light on all the rest. God always exercises his sovereignty through the Son, and on behalf of the Son (Heb. 1:3; John 13:31–32). The whole of history is moving forward to a time of glorification when Christ will be seen in his central role (Rev. 21:22–22:5).

When we think of either “covenant” or “kingdom of God” in its broadest sense, the concept is broad enough to include nearly everything within its scope. The word “covenant” typically focuses on God’s relation to human beings. But if we desire we can expand our idea of “covenant” to include God’s relation with the whole of his creation (Jer. 33:20), as long as we remember that mankind plays a central role with the created order. Covenant is the means through which God works out his kingly purposes and establishes the climactic phase of his rule. So covenant is part of kingdom. Conversely, God exerts his rule on behalf of his people, for the glory of Christ who is head of his people. So kingdom exists for the sake of Christ, who is the heart of the covenant (Isa. 42:6; 49:8). Either one of these can be viewed as “dominant,” if we enrich its meaning sufficiently.

3. How would you describe the relationship between the unconditionality / conditionality of the covenants in the Bible, and what difference should this understanding make to our Bible reading as we come across the various covenants in the text?

One of the challenges with respect to understanding covenants is that there is more than one particular covenant in the Bible. We must be careful to study the particularities of each covenant, as well as to see lessons with respect to the general pattern (an overall covenant of grace). For example, God makes a covenant with Noah after the flood, in Gen. 9:1–17. It includes Noah’s descendants (9:9). God makes a promise not to bring another flood to destroy the earth, and gives the rainbow as a sign. The promise is valid for all Noah’s descendants. In the ordinary sense, this is an “unconditional” covenant. There is no extra condition, no “if” clause. God does not say, “I promise this only if your descendants obey me.” Similarly, we can find no obvious added conditions when God promises to Abraham that he will bring the Israelites out of Egypt (Gen. 15:13–16). On the other hand, in the covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17, there is a kind of “condition”: someone who is uncircumcised “shall be cut off from his people” (17:14). So circumcision is a kind of “condition” for Abraham’s descendants. In Deuteronomy, as part of the covenantal relation between God and Israel, God requires that Israel remain faithful to him, and threatens to put them into exile if they persistently disobey (Deuteronomy 28). Their obedience is a “condition” for remaining in the land.

Many people are most interested in what to think about God’s promises of final salvation through Christ. These promises are most fully articulated in the NT, and are associated with the new covenant. The promises always come in relation to Christ, who is both God and man (Heb. 1:3; 2:11, 14). As man, Christ was required to trust in God the Father and to obey the Father’s will. These requirements for Christ were, in a sense, “conditions.” Apart from his trust and his obedience, no one would have been saved. At the same time, because Christ is God, and because God promised in the OT that he would infallibly accomplish salvation (Isa. 42:3–4), Christ’s obedience was guaranteed. That does not make his obedience easy or trivial. Remember how he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hebrews comments on the deep reality of his obedient suffering: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb. 5:7–8). Salvation involved a “condition,” that is, Christ’s suffering and obedience. These had to take place if we were to be saved. At the same time, God through his prophetic word unconditionally guaranteed that Christ would meet the conditions!

Since Christ is fully man, God as God had a relationship to Christ the man, and this relationship between God and the man was, in the general sense, “covenantal.” God on his part made commitments to Christ in his OT promises. Christ, in his earthly life, committed himself to following the Father’s way. This covenant between God and Christ was both “conditional”—involving the necessity of Christ’s obedience—and “unconditional”—guaranteed by God. So the words “conditional” and “unconditional” must be used with care. We have to ask ourselves not only which covenantal relation we are discussing, but what aspect of that relation.

When we turn to God’s promises of final salvation to us, they are based on Christ. These promises are secure, because Christ has accomplished full salvation, not merely the possibility of salvation: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54). “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:39–40). “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:29). Thus, we can say that when we believe in Christ, we are “unconditionally” saved. But then is belief in Christ a kind of condition? Clearly it is. And belief means really trusting in Christ, not merely mouthing words in which we verbally say that we are trusting. Belief is itself a product of God’s prior purpose for us: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).

Some people have postulated that God’s initiative in choosing us and “drawing” us goes back ultimately to his foreseeing our future faith. But this order reverses the order of the Bible. This reversal says, in effect, “as many as believed were appointed by God to eternal life.” But the Bible says the opposite: “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). God’s appointment, that is, his choosing us to be saved, is unconditional. It does not depend on our belief or on anything in us. “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). But when God draws us to Christ, he provides everything that we need, both faith and the power for new living in fellowship with Christ. Faith and new, holy living are both indispensable parts of the Christian life. They are “conditions” in this sense. But God undertakes through Christ to work in us; Christ’s own power is the guarantee that we will continue: “. . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12–13).

We should also say that joining the church brings a person into a kind of covenantal relationship with God, since the person makes promises to God at the time of his baptism. But being baptized does not guarantee that a person is eternally saved. The Bible frankly described the possibility and the reality of apostasy—some people fall away from a faith that they earlier professed: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” (1 John 2:19). The “going out” describes apostasy, falling away from the Christian community, the church. Apostasy is like a negative condition. If you are to be saved, you must not apostasize. But this teaching is not inconsistent with the security of salvation for those who trust in Christ. First John says, “They were not of us.” Apostasy reveals openly what was true even beforehand: that the apostate heart was never set on genuinely trusting in Christ in the first place.

A short summary might say that the instances of unconditional promises in the OT anticipate the security that God gives us when he guarantees eternal salvation in Christ. The instances of conditions in the OT anticipate both the necessity of Christ’s own obedience, and the reality that when God works salvation in us, he brings about obedience in us. This working in us is part of the total process of salvation.

Interview continued here with questions 4&5.

Coming Soon: Vern Poythress Interview - September 8th & 15th

2008-08-30T11:47:00.004+01:00

We'll be publishing an exclusive interview with Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary on Monday 8th and Monday 15th of September about the forthcoming ESV Study Bible.

Still Deeper - Darkness around the Cross

2008-07-23T12:49:00.002+01:00

A day conference for all wanting to go deeper in theology, ministry and culture
St. Andrew's Church, Bishopsgate, London
27th September 10am – 4pm

Still Deeper aims to help people go deeper in their grasp of theology
and culture. This 2nd Still Deeper conference focuses on the darkness
round the cross: God's wrath.We struggle to face the horror of God's
anger, but as we do so the cross appears more glorious.
Exposition, doctrine and cultural analysis include:

• Melvin Tinker Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant.
• Andrew Atherstone Divine retribution: a forgotten doctrine?
• Peter Sanlon Why a violent culture fears a violent atonement.
• Sam Allberry Lamentations: Poetry of Wrath.
• Lee McMunn Believing and preaching hell.

Cost: £10. Bring your own lunch, coffee provided.
Register online at www.thegoodbook.co.uk/stilldeeper
or call 0845-225-0880 to book.

A fee of £1 will be charged for online registrations, or £2 for telephone booking.
Visit http://www.stilldeeper.com/

Summer Update @ BeginningWithMoses.org

2008-07-20T17:58:00.003+01:00

Visit the site. See what is new

Still Deeper

2008-04-05T19:27:00.003+01:00

A contributor to Beginning with Moses recently started a new online journal - Still Deeper. It aims to encourage people to go deeper in their grasp of Christian theology and its implications for modern life.

The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel

2008-03-24T21:14:00.002Z

Jim Hamilton : The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel (mp3), and pdf.

ht: Timmy Brister

Goldsworthy on BT

2008-03-19T06:54:00.003Z

Our advisor Graeme Goldsworthy has been out and about...

The necessity and validity of Biblical Theology, Graeme Goldsworthy at SBTS (mp3)

More Goldsworthy at http://beginningwithmoses.org

New at BeginningWithMoses.org by Jim Hamilton

2008-03-18T16:01:00.002Z

1. The Center of Biblical Theology in Acts: deliverance and damnation display the divine

2. God with men in the Torah

3. God with men in the prophets and writings

Editors, interviewed

2008-01-22T19:38:00.000Z

Guy Davies blogs:

One Minute Piper

2007-12-14T21:52:00.000Z

John Piper: on listening to sermons

Christmas Update @ BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-12-13T23:43:00.000Z

Who are you kissing this Christmas?
Biblical Theology Briefing on Psalm 2(Simon Flinders)

The Johannine footwashing and the death of Jesus
(David Gibson)

The distinctive use of the OT in John's Gospel
(Jonathan Gibson)

REVIEW: Old Testament Theology Vol 1&2
(John Goldingay)

Singing the cover versions: Psalms, reinterpretation and Biblical Theology in Acts 1-4 (Jamie Grant)

A Theology of the Gospel (Mike Bird)

Engaging With Barth

2007-11-06T15:15:00.000Z

From BeginningWithMoses.org editor and the guy from Oakhil...
David Gibson & Daniel Strange : Engaging with Barth

I ♥ Biblical Theology

2007-10-04T08:01:00.000+01:00

"biblical theology is obviously better than proof-texting"
Daniel Newman

David Jackman

2007-10-02T10:08:00.001+01:00

The Briefing Podcast - Interview with David Jackman on preaching

David is on our Advisory Board.

See this paper
What's so special about preaching? the 2006 EMA address on preaching

October at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-09-29T22:03:00.001+01:00

We're back after the summer with a selection of new articles for you...

BRIEFING: Change your values - Joel Edwards
REVIEW: The World We All Want - Steve Timmis & Tim Chester
REVIEW: Marriage - Christopher Ash
Bible and Mission - Richard Bauckham
Preaching Christ from Genesis - Sidney Greidanus

New Word Alive

2007-09-28T23:04:00.000+01:00

Don't miss out on Piper, Carson & Virgo in Wales next Easter.

Easy

2007-09-27T08:29:00.000+01:00

Alice (12): What's the Bible about, Isabel?
Isabel (3): It's about Jesus.
Biblical Theology in the Reynolds household

Preaching the Cross to those without the categories to understand it

2007-08-14T13:53:00.000+01:00

Between Genesis 1 and John 3 is a long, patient work of God,
so that people can understand the Cross.
Dan Philips at Pyromaniacs

Bible Study Resource

2007-08-09T11:56:00.000+01:00

These are Bible Studies I've written in service of Reading University Christian Union and Surrey University Christian Union between 2003-2007.

They're written on the conviction that the word of God is living and active, capable of destroying nations, of creating universes, of awakening the soul, of raising the dead, of exposing motives and of causing God-glorifying transformation. To come to the word of God to simply learn is to miss the point. We come to taste and see that which is more precious than gold. Come and gaze on glory!

Undoubtedly they're not the best studies the world has ever seen, but if they can be of some service to the wider church then that's great. They're not really designed to be used straight off the page, but intentionally written to require some extra preparation by the leader. They're a tool to lead you to worship Jesus in his word. Feel free to edit and adapt but not sell them.

gazeonglory.blogspot.com

Review of Pierced for our Transgressions

2007-07-10T18:38:00.001+01:00

Tim Challies reviews
Pierced for our Transgressions
for BeginningWithMoses.org

June Updates at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-06-04T09:47:00.000+01:00

May your kingdom come
(Graham Beynon)
biblical theology briefing

The Mission of God
(Chris Wright)
review

Shepherds after my own heart
(Timothy Laniak)
review

Editor Grundy

2007-05-11T19:59:00.000+01:00

Could you refit BeginningWithMoses.org?

2007-05-05T10:38:00.000+01:00

Help Wanted: BeginningWithMoses.org is almost five years old. It's a labour of love for us that we keep going in our spare time. Technically speaking the whole thing is getting a bit unwieldy. We're looking for someone who shares our passion for Biblical Theology who has the ability to give us a technical refit and get the site properly databased and more accessible, for no cost. If that's you, get in touch. Email Dave

May Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-05-05T10:37:00.000+01:00

Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics
(Graeme L. Goldsworthy)
blurb | review

The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs
(James Hamilton)

The One Who Does Them Shall Live By Them
(James Hamilton)

The centrality of penal substitution

2007-05-04T20:39:00.000+01:00

Talking about The Cross at The Coffee Bible Club...

"Penal substitution has to be "central" for me because I read my bible. That may sound like a ridiculously blank statement, so I'll explain what I mean... I don't think that penal substitution normally gets pushed out of the picture on its own. What normally happens is that parts of God's character get pushed out of the picture. This particularly happens when the story of the Old Testament gets sidelined."

Sam Shearn - No room for despair

Penal Substitution ignites the blogosphere...

2007-04-24T15:21:00.000+01:00

Catch up on what the blogs are saying about UCCF, Word Alive, Steve Chalke, Spring Harvest, NT Wright, Pierced for our transgressions and more...

Cross-purposes

2007-04-20T14:10:00.000+01:00

Adrian Warnock reports on a major split in UK evangelicalism - Keswick & UCCF forced to go separate ways from Spring Harvest... and the issue is crucial - it's the Cross.

This Easter a clear line was drawn in the sand in British Evangelicalism. For years, whenever the word “evangelical” was mentioned, people in the UK would think almost immediately of Spring Harvest — easily the UK's largest Christian conference. Part of that package has been Word Alive, a distinct all-age event run by UCCF (who owns the UK-based Intervarsity Press) and the Keswick Convention in partnership with Spring Harvest. At the heart of Word Alive has been a separate student track with up to 2,000 students. Beginning in 2008, there will be no more Word Alive at Spring Harvest. New Word Alive has managed to confirm a fantastic line-up of main preachers: John Piper, Terry Virgo, and Don Carson will all be speaking at the event.
www.newwordalive.org

This is all wrapped up in the issues we've been highlighting at www.beginningwithmoses.org this month.

15 Incontrovertible Arguments in favour of Expository Preaching

2007-04-15T18:00:00.000+01:00

(1) Preaching through the books of the Bible, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, respects and reflects God’s authorship. God did not gives us a book of quotable quotes, nor a dictionary of useful texts, nor an anthology of inspiring ideas. When God caused the Scriptures to be written the medium that he used was that of books of the Bible. If that was good enough for the author it should be good enough for the preacher.

(2)Expository Preaching reflects God’s respect for human authors. One of the most beautiful features of the Bible is the way in which God causes his truth to be written and yet does not over-ride the individual writer, but respects their place in history, their vocabulary, their spoken and literary style. If God is so careful to respect the human authors of the Scriptures we should endeavour to do the same by reading, studying, preaching and teaching their books in the order in the way in they wrote them.

Read the other thirteen reasons and more in Peter Adam - Arguing for Expository Preaching

Where are we?

2007-04-10T13:33:00.000+01:00

Some sort of server problem today. Not sure why, we've called the helpdesk and they're trying to fix things. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
To my knowledge this is now fixed. 22:06

The shedding of blood for a sin-ravaged world

2007-04-09T20:03:00.000+01:00

Mark Meynell writes: "Living outside the UK at the time of the publication of The Lost Message of Jesus1 meant I was largely unaware of most of the heat and sadly often harsh words which it provoked on all sides. The book caused controversy, and, in many ways, rightly so. One of the difficulties, however, is that Chalke and Mann’s rather inflammatory discussion of the atonement forms only a small, although perhaps highly indicative, part of the book. That can detract from the number of valid points they make. Nevertheless, because their treatment of the atonement has resonated with what a number of other scholars have been saying (especially in the USA but in the UK as well), it is important that we reflect not only on what they are saying but also (more importantly) why they are saying it..."

Read the full article: The shedding of blood for a sin-ravaged world (PDF)

Mark Meynell blogs
All Souls, Langham Place, London

April Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-03-30T14:50:00.000+01:00

For April we've added some new articles on the cross, highlighted a range of articles we already had on this area...

We have an exclusive special offer on the new book by Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our transgressions.
Special offer now closed.

www.beginningwithmoses.org

March at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-03-17T22:03:00.000Z

So... firstly, sorry that the March update hasn't materialised. BeginningWithMoses.org is a project we work on in our spare time and we just didn't quite have enough of that this month... not least because of a major computer failure... Anyways, enough excuses.

Here's the second thing... we're delighted to announce that we've secured a special deal with IVP for the new book, Pierced for our Transgressions which aims to recover the glorious doctrine of penal substitution. That'll be available along with a load of high quality articles about the cross from April 1st.

The book is available now from IVP for £16.99 but in our deal it'll be a mere £12.99 (UK inc. p&p) or £15.99 (international, inc p&p). We can't take orders before April 1st. So check back then for details!

February Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-02-05T08:57:00.000Z

Next Monthly update due : March 5th 2007

Covenant:
The beginnings of a Biblical idea

(Paul Williamson)

Inerrancy:
A critical evaluation of Kath Bath's suggestion that Biblical inerrancy is theologically indefensible

(Jonathan Gibson)

And in books....

Will Lind reviews Graham Beynon's Experiencing the Spirit... and Graham Beynon reviews Keith Hacking's Signs and Wonders, Then and Now.

New Arrivals

2007-01-04T09:02:00.000Z

Congratulations to
BeginningWithMoses.org editor David, and Angela on the birth of Archie!

January Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2007-01-01T19:09:00.000Z

Christ's Baptism and Crucifixion: The annointing and enthronement of God's son, Mark's Gospel
A.B. Caneday

Why the law then? A Biblical Theology of Law in Galatians
Chris Poteet

Plus two new books, and a review:

A new blog to take a look at: Unashamed Workman - Colin Adams

Christmas Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-12-16T13:49:00.000Z

New in articles

THE VIRGIN WILL CONCEIVE
(JAMES HAMILTON)

SONG OF SONGS: A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
(ROS CLARKE)

HAVE YOU GOT THE WHOLE STORY?
(MIKE CAIN)

New in books...

Back Online

2006-12-11T17:40:00.000Z

BeginningWithMoses.org is now back online. We'll catch up on the updates that have been missing in the 40 days we've been offline as soon as we can. Very sorry for the inconvenience and big thank you to Kris our techie friend for support along the way.

Technical Fault

2006-10-27T06:55:00.000+01:00

Hello!

As you may have noticed BeginningWithMoses.org is currently unavailable. Or at least when you go to the URL what you find is a rather unhelpful placeholder. Here's the story in case you're wondering....

Basically, we were in the process of changing some of how the site works behind the scenes and this led to a delay in renewing the domainname. Because of this, which essentially was our fault, the company we had it registered with swapped our site for a placeholder. And for now we don't have the ability to change that page. Consequently it looks like a rather odd religious webpage, somewhat askew from our goals and objectives. Please don't think that we've abandoned our commitment to Biblical Theology!

The website still exists it's just that the front door has gone walkabout. Our registrars are under instructions to fix everything and we really hope it wont be long until that happens. BeginningWithMoses.org is coming back some how, some time soon.

We're really sorry for the inconvenience to you because of this, and really annoyed that we slipped up and let this happen. Hope you can forgive us and will continue to enjoy the resources we've gathered when we can get the frontdoor open again.

Our plans for the next year are to keep expanding the site with quality resources and to improve the design and accessibility of things, since our content has somewhat outgrown the existing design.

With apologies,

Dave, on behalf of the editorial team.

UPDATE: Still no news on the resurrection of Moses... but if a little service update, if you're in urgent need of one of our resources then drop me an email on relaydave@hotmail.com letting me know which article you're wanting access to and I'll send you a copy asap. I appreciate that isn't the same as the site being fully available but I hope it helps a bit.

UPDATE 12th November: So it turns out the problem wasn't actually our failure to renew things but that the company concerned had disappeared. Apparently this is all recoverable but may take some time..... Life is vapour and it turns out that ISPs and Servers are too.

For the Bible tells me so?

2006-10-06T22:56:00.000+01:00

For the Bible tells me so? The roles of faith and evidence in believing the Bible

David Gibson

Introduction

‘Why do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? How can you persuade me that it’s true?’

It had been a difficult first term at university for Jo. A committed Christian, she was facing a real challenge with her theology and religious studies degree. Her A level in RS had been taught by a Christian teacher who was able to explain things sympathetically and give guidance from a biblical point of view. But at university it was different. Few, if any, of the lecturers seemed to share her Christian faith and some were openly quite hostile to any form of conservative belief about the Bible. Jo was faced with a constant barrage of critical theories about the biblical texts and intimidating bibliographies of titles written by eminent professors, none of whom seemed to believe what she believed. Towards the end of the term she tried to explain her evangelical convictions to Alex, another first-year student on her course, who seemed happy to accept everything they were being taught. But Alex’s questions at the end of their discussion left her struggling: ‘Why do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? How can you persuade me that it’s true?’

How should Jo respond to these questions?

This chapter attempts to outline some of the issues that need to be addressed in constructing a theology of belief in the Bible. What is it that convinces us that the Bible is God’s Word - is it
faith, or evidence about the Bible’s reliability and truthfulness, or some combination of the two? Also, on what basis and using which method can we seek to persuade others of the divine origin of the Bible - by presenting evidence for the Bible’s reliability, or pointing them to Christ, or some combination of the two?

Here I will be arguing for a form of presuppositionalism over against a more evidentialist approach, but this will be unpacked in terms that are more theological than philosophical.[1] This is not to deny the value of these terms, as in most Christian thought they rest on clear theological understandings about what they mean and where their value comes from.[2] However, I wish to outline an approach to the truth of the Bible that does not start with the merit or demerits of certain terms used in apologetics but that starts by working outwards from the biblical data. The chapter aims to develop an explicitly theological approach to the Bible - by this I mean that the Bible itself tells us why it is we believe the Bible to be God’s Word and this fact has to be embedded in all our thinking about the complex relationship between faith and evidence. The progression of argument will inevitably lead us to consider what is involved in both presuppositionalism and evidentialism, and to consider briefly how the argument bears on what
has become known as ‘Reformed epistemology’.[3] We will also reflect briefly on the suggestion that Jo should not even try to provide an answer to Alex’s questions, as the questions themselves are misguided - it is belief in Christ, not the Bible, that is the really important matter.

The priority of the gospel and the testimony of the Spirit

We can get straight to the heart of the issue by considering a number of biblical texts that point us towards a theological approach to the Bible:

At that time Jesus said, ‘I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned, and revealed them to little children.’ (Matthew 11:25)

Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.’ (Matthew 16:16-17)

In reply Jesus declared, ‘I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ( John 3:3)

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:12-14)

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:4-6)

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man ...(Galatians 1:15-16)

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. (Ephesians 4:17-18)

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5)

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth ...As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit - just as it has taught you, remain in him. (1 John 2:20,27)

This is the one who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. (1 John 5:6-10)

It could be argued that none of these texts relates directly to the issue of how we come to believe the Bible, but they do impinge directly on two theological issues: first, how we come to perceive spiritual truth; and, further, how we come to embrace it for what it truly is - the testimony about Christ and his gospel. These texts make it clear that the human mind is incapable of seeing and embracing spiritual truth without the working of the Holy Spirit; he removes innate blindness and illuminates the mind to grasp the truth of the gospel. It is the Holy Spirit who gives birth to faith and it is then faith that grasps hold of the spiritual truths held out in the gospel. Faith recognizes Christ for who he claims to be, grasps the meaning of the cross, sees the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ and therefore believes the words that communicate these truths to be true words.

My thesis here can be simply stated: through the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating the mind to the truths of the gospel, the Bible is accepted as true through faith. We come to accept the truthfulness of the Bible because we have first had our minds enlightened to see the truth of the Gospel, which we embrace by faith. This faith enables us to see that the words of the Bible purport to be God’s words and to grasp that God’s words are true words. J. I. Packer explains this further:

Having disclosed himself objectively in history, in His incarnate Son, and in His written scriptural Word, God now enlightens men subjectively in experience, so that they apprehend His self-disclosure for what it is. Thus he causes them to know Him and his end in revelation is achieved ...Historic Protestantism has regularly described this part of the Spirit’s ministry as His witness to divine truth. It is a healing of spiritual faculties, a restoring to man of a permanent receptiveness towards divine things, a giving and sustaining of power to recognize and receive divine utterances for what they are. It is given in conjunction with the hearing or reading of such utterances, and the immediate fruit of it is an inescapable awareness of their divine origin and authority.[4]

This position is known historically as the ‘internal testimony of the Spirit’ and is found classically in John Calvin. In context, Calvin was rejecting the idea that faith in the truth of Scripture rested on the authority of the church, yet his central argument is relevant to our discussion here. His words are worth quoting substantially:

They who strive to build upon firm faith in Scripture through disputation are doing things backwards ...even if anyone clears God’s Sacred Word from man’s evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty that piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish, and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a .t witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded ...Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God’s Word. As if the Spirit were not called both ‘seal’ and ‘guarantee’ (2Cor.1:22) for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts! Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that the Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning ...Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we arm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has .owed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any guesswork![5]

Two points follow from this. First, it is clear that Calvin establishes a distinct difference between ‘inspiration’ and ‘internal testimony’. Inspiration is bound up with the very nature of Scripture and is what guarantees the conclusion that ‘the prophets spoke divinely’; it therefore also guarantees that the Scriptures are by definition authoritative. The internal testimony work of the Spirit is what enables us to perceive that Scripture is authoritative. This distinction is very important to bear in mind given that in much modern theology, particularly in the Barthian tradition,[6] the internal testimony of the Spirit replaces the traditional concept of inspiration and is regarded as the decisive factor in making Scripture authoritative.[7]

Second, an argument for the truth of the Bible following this position holds that the truthfulness of the Bible is an article of faith - it is not something we come to by empirical discovery. In
much the same way as one cannot prove the existence of God, given that it is a belief one holds through faith, so likewise one cannot conclusively prove the full truthfulness and divine origin of
the Bible. On what ground should articles of faith be believed? Packer states that Scripture answers this question by

resolving the ground of faith, formally, into the veracity of God and, materially, into the divine origin of the propositions put forward for belief. The proper basis for believing is, on the one hand, the acknowledgment that God speaks only truth and, on the other, the recognition of what is proposed as something which He Himself has said. Articles of faith are just truths for which God is perceived to have vouched.[8]

In other words, if Scripture declares that God is a God of truth who speaks only truth, and if Scripture claims that it is the actual words of that God, then that is the ground of our believing
the Bible to be true. This is a belief we come to by faith because our belief in the God who spoke the Bible’s words is by faith. Accepting the doctrine of Scripture’s truthfulness and authority is akin to accepting other doctrines in Scripture. AsPacker states:

All scriptural affimations are in fact divine utterances, and are through the Spirit apprehended as such by faith. But among the affirmations of Scripture is the biblical doctrine of Scripture which we have surveyed; and one effect of the Spirit’s witnessing is to make men bow to this doctrine. The case is just the same as with any other article of faith . . .Just as the Spirit teaches all Christians to receive as authoritative articles of faith the doctrines which the Scriptures assert, so He teaches them to regard as an authoritative source of doctrine the Scriptures which assert them.[9]

Although it goes beyond the scope of our discussion here, this approach necessarily impacts on other aspects of the doctrine of Scripture such as the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Believing that the Bible is completely truthful and without error are likewise truths based on the trustworthiness of God and are again not aspects of the Bible we can empirically set out to prove decisively. [10] They may be demonstrable and rationally justifiable but, because the Bible itself claims to be truthful and reliable,[11] we come to the Bible with an a prioi belief in its perfections, rather than seeking to prove it a posteriori from each successive text. [12]

To sum up thus far: we come to believe in the truthfulness and divine origin of the Bible through the internal testimony of the Spirit - the Spirit performs this work in our hearts as he opens our eyes to the glory of the gospel and brings us to faith in Christ.[13] Scripture itself witnesses that it is from God directly and that all that it says is to be received as his Word. These are evident facts we are incapable of seeing without the Spirit’s illumination, but which, through his work, we come to hold by conviction. To concur with Packer again:

The effect of this witness is thus the self-authentication of Scripture to the Christian’s conscience. We conclude that where there is faith in Christ, and the Bible is known and read at all, there also, more or less explicit, is faith in Scripture as God’s written Word.[14] However, this is not the end of the matter when it comes to the issue of how we seek to persuade others of the divine origin of the Bible.

External and internal justification

It has become common to talk about two sorts of defence for the Bible, two patterns of justification for the Bible being of divine origin. Here the work of Paul Helm is extremely helpful.[15] Helm distinguishes between external justification - the view that the Bible can only be said to be of divine origin if it meets certain criteria established independently of it; and internal justification - the view that the Bible ought to be believed to be of divine origin on its
own evidence.[16]

At first glance the thought of external justification is appealing - it would seem to offer non-arbitrary and generally accepted grounds for concluding that the Bible is the Word of God. However, there are at least three main reasons why we must deem external justification to be highly problematic. Helm outlines these as:

1. Externalism assumes that there is some obvious, unquestionable test or criterion of what is appropriate for a divine revelation, or that there is some a priori standard of reasonableness that the Scriptures must meet. But who is to decide what this standard is?[17]
2. Accepting an external criterion as proof of the Bible’s divine origin is necessarily compromising - it makes the authority of the Bible and of God dependent on other matters external to the Bible. Acceptance of the Bible as God’s revelation is made to depend on other non-revealed matters.
3..Even at its best, externalism can only offer the probability that the Bible is God’s Word - and this is not the kind of foundation on which Christian belief about the Scriptures is based.[18]

These problems with externalism lead us conversely into the area of internal justification and it is this position that I want to examine more closely. It is important to see that, if all the above arguments function negatively against externalism, the second argument above functions as a positive endorsement of internalism.

Further, it is vital to see that this argument is not merely a form of philosophical logic, but actually expresses some important theological truths about God, about Christ and about the
words they speak. Hebrews 6:13 states that ‘When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no-one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself . . .’ This shows the principle that the validating source of something is always the higher and final authority; in this instance, when God himself wants to validate his words, he offers himself as validation for those words, since there is no higher authority. The same is true of Christ’s words in John 8:14 ‘Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going.’

The point here is that, as Robert L. Reymond states, ‘Jesus validated his claims by appealing to his knowledge of himself ’, exactly the same principle as in Hebrews 6:13 [19] It is this, and not primarily logic, that demands that nothing external to God’s words can validate God’s words. If the Bible is God’s Word, then it is a Word that is necessarily authoritative. This is not because of any proof that can be offered about it, but because it was God who spoke it. Primarily such biblical data lead to the conviction that the Bible is necessarily self-authenticating, self-evidencing, self-attesting and self-validating. They lead to Calvin’s phrase, which we have already considered: ‘God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word’.

The problem of circularity

This view, of course, raises the problem of whether such an approach to the Bible is based on a circular argument - it uses the Bible to validate the Bible! Some of the most thoughtful work in
this area has been done by John Frame in his work The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. On this issue he states:

Criticism [of circularity] is effective only when the critic can suggest a better way. But there is no alternative to circularity. First, allegiance to our Lord demands that we be loyal to Him, even when we are seeking to justify our assertions about Him. We cannot abandon our covenant commitment to escape the charge of circularity. Second, no system can escape circularity because all systems - non-Christian as well as Christian are based on presuppositions that control their epistemologies, argumentation and use of evidence. Thus a rationalist can prove the primacy of reason only by using a rational argument. An empiricist can prove the primacy of sense-experience only by some kind of appeal to sense-experience . . [20]

Frame also points out that circularity is only justifiable when arguing for the ultimate criterion in any system of thought; such reasoning is not a carte blanche for circularity at all points in all
types of argument. But perhaps the most important point here is Frame’s distinction between ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’ circularity.

A statement such as ‘The Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God’ is an example of ‘narrow circularity’. Statements such as ‘Scripture is the Word of God because in Exodus,
Deuteronomy and elsewhere God indicates his desire to rule his people by a written text; because in .Timothy 3:16 and in 2 Peter 1:21 the Old Testament is identified with that covenantal constitution; because Jesus appointed the apostles to write authoritative words’ - these are examples of more ‘broad circularity’ because this type of argument offers us more data. [21] We should note, however, that even this type of ‘broad’ circularity is closely related to the more ‘narrow’ type of statement, as both are what we might call testimony evidence. That is, in different ways they are both built on what God himself has said or testified about the Bible. The circle could then be broadened beyond this to include other internal evidence, such as the coherence or unity of Scripture and so forth; we will look at arguments like this shortly.

Very importantly, Frame argues that the circle can be broadened even more to include extrabiblical data: ‘The Bible is the Word of God because archaeology, history, and philosophy verify its teachings. ’ However, Frame wishes to stress that these extrabiblical fields are not to be used in a value-neutral way, but only by presupposing that they are Christian sciences - the argument is still actually circular because we would be using archaeology, history and philosophy that presuppose the biblical world view[22] We will come back to this issue of extrabiblical data later; here we must pause to consider the relationship between the above examples of narrow and broad circularity and what we have seen earlier about the internal testimony of the Spirit.

I propose that statements of the narrowly circular sort, such as ‘The Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God’ should be abandoned. They may be logically defensible, but it can be argued that it is not this sort of conviction that the testimony of the Spirit brings about. Rather, it is better to say that ‘The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is the Word of God.’ This may seem a very subtle distinction, but it changes the matter entirely. With the latter statement, belief in the Bible is grounded in something that, by faith, we believe God has said; as we have seen, that grounds our faith in the Bible in the veracity of God. Further, the Spirit’s work of testifying to the Scriptures must be understood as that work which opens our minds to see all that Scripture evidences about itself and which we would not other-wise see.

The work of the Spirit does not lead us to have the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God without any reasons whatsoever, as if it were a kind of ‘holy brainwashing’. This is what could lead to the statement ‘The Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God.’ Frame makes the point that the work of the Spirit is not in conflict with a rationality defined by a Christian epistemology. He states that sin

keeps us from acknowledging warranted conclusions, rational conclusions. The work of the Spirit is to remove those effects of sin, to overcome their resistance. The Spirit does not whisper to us special reasons that are not otherwise available . . .

Rather, we should understand the work of the Holy Spirit as causing us to see the reasons that are available, the internal evidence for the Bible being the Word of God.[23] That evidence may
be as ‘narrow’ as God’s own word about the Scriptures (‘The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is’ - testimony evidence). Or it may be as ‘broad’ as the many other internal evidences that can be given - we might refer to these as material evidences. Historically, the various internal evidences for the Bible’s divine origin have been variously expressed; perhaps one of the most famous is the Westminster Confession of Faith, which suggests that the ways by which the Bible evidences itself to be the Word of God are

the heavenliness of the matter, the ecacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the purpose of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full disclosure it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof.[24]

These are the ways in which Scripture witnesses to us about its divine origin. We are incapable of seeing them without the witness of the Spirit - or, more precisely, incapable of seeing them as marks of divinity without the Spirit. Calvin outlines a similar argument and yet states very explicitly that such internal evidences are not primarily what make us sure about the Bible:

once we have embraced [Scripture] devoutly as its dignity deserves, and have recognized it to be above the common sort of things, those arguments - not strong enough before to engraft and fix the certainty of Scripture in our minds - become very useful aids.[25]

In the terms of our discussion here, what makes us certain of the Bible as the Word of God? It is the Spirit’s testimony to the ‘narrow’ or foundational, internal testimony evidence that depends
on the character of God and the word he speaks, together with the Spirit’s testimony to the ‘broad’ or aiding, internal material evi-dence, as outlined in Calvin and the Westminster Confession.

Two questions and an illustration

To help us see the force of this argument about ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’ forms of internal evidence, it is helpful to make a distinction between two questions and it is vital to see that they should
not necessarily be answered in the same way:

1. Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

2.What evidence is there for believing that the Bible is the Word of God?

To see that these questions are different, consider the following illustration. If you were to ask me why I believe my wife loves me, I might reply either that I just know she does or that I know it because she says she does. Neither would be an inadequate answer and neither would call into question the reality of my wife’s love, even though I have not given any substantial or material evidence beyond the testimony of her own word.

However, if you were then to ask me what material evidence there is that my wife loves me, I could happily list any number of ways in which by attitude, action, word and gesture my wife demonstrates that she loves me. But am I wrong not to base my belief in her love on the material evidence? Certainly not - we might want to suggest that, if there were no material evidence whatsoever, my belief in her love could be questioned. But that is not the same thing as saying that the ground of my belief in her love is the material evidence. In the sphere of human relations there is a ‘knowing and being known’ that does not formally depend on the material evidence for that knowledge; there is, so to speak, a sense in which ‘we just know’ that something is true, not for no reason whatsoever, but because of the reality of the relationship.

The reason why we believe that the Bible is the Word of God is not in the first instance because of all the material evidence for the Bible being the Word of God. We might answer this question first by stating that we know the Bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit has opened our eyes to grasp by faith that it is true; or that because of faith we accept that the Bible is the Word of God because God says it is. This is internal, testimony evidence of the narrower kind outlined above. It is sucient to warrant certainty, because the Spirit’s work has brought us into a relationship with the living God whereby we are sure, by faith, that certain articles of faith are true.

This argument is similar to that advanced by one of the proponents of Reformed epistemology, Alvin Plantinga,[26] in that he suggests that Christians are warranted in their Christian belief by a three-stage process: by reading Scripture, being led by the Holy Spirit, and then receiving faith from the Holy Spirit. As people read the Bible, they receive the internal testimony of the Spirit and can pronounce in faith, ‘Yes, that’s right, that’s the truth of the matter; this is indeed the word of the Lord.’ 27 However, contrary to Plantinga et al.,28 that does not mean that it is invalid to speak of other positive reasons in the form of material evidence for the Bible being the Word of God. We must make the distinction between the ground of our faith in the Bible and the evidence for the Bible. The ground of our faith is explicitly theological: it is based on the gospel, the work of the Spirit, the testimony of God, and yet this faith is accompanied by material evidence.[29]

Extrabiblical evidence

So far I have left more or less untouched the issue of extrabiblical evidence and its relationship to how we come to believe in the Bible. This is a complex area that poses many sophisticated epistemological problems. However, following Frame, I suggest that because Christianity contains propositional claims about God’s acts in history and because those claims are true, then God has left his fingerprints in our world. Two important points follow.

First, the Christian evidential argument can never be merely evidential.[30] We should notice the presupposition in the preceding sentence, which means that we work outwards from the truth about God and the Bible to historical matters, rather than trying to evaluate neutrally all the data in history that will somehow lead us to God. I suggest it cannot be otherwise, given what we have seen about human blindness and the necessary work of the Spirit. Christian handling of evidence must always start from Christian presuppositions about the framework of interpretation for that evidence. Consider the issue of the resurrection of Jesus; here Frame is worth quoting in full:

In 1 Corinthians 15, the Resurrection is presented in the context of Old and New Testament Theology; it is not presented merely by using ‘inductive evidence’ apart from a theological framework of meaning. To be sure, Paul appeals to witnesses to establish the fact of the Resurrection (vv 3-14) but even that is presented as part of Paul’s authoritative apostolic instruction (v3). The point is not so much that the Corinthians could verify the Resurrection for themselves by consulting the witnesses, though that is true and that fact does confirm what he says. Paul’s point is rather that the testimony to the Resurrection was part of the apostolic preaching and is therefore to be accepted as part of that apostolic testimony. After making that point, Paul then gives an additional reason why the Resurrection ought to be believed: if it is denied, the whole doctrinal content of Christianity must also be denied (vv12-19). Paul then goes on to compare Christ with the Old Testament figure of Adam and Christ’s redemption with the Old Testament description of man’s sinful condition (vv20-22). Following that, Paul presents an even more theological discussion of the role that the Resurrection plays in the organism of revelation. Clearly, then, the Resurrection is no ‘brute fact’ and the grounds for believing it are not ‘purely empirical’ or ‘purely inductive.’ Empirical considerations, such as witnesses, play a role but the crucial point is that the Resurrection is central to the presuppositional revelation: we cannot consistently presuppose Christ if we deny the Resurrection.[31]

This is relevant to our discussion because it is an example of how truths in Scripture are understood on the basis of scriptural pre-suppositions. I suggest that the same is exactly true of truths about Scripture.

To return to the illustration about my wife’s love for me, if you were to ask me what material evidence there is that my wife loves me, I might reply by saying that she buys me theological books for my birthday. However, in many people’s presuppositional frame-work (including my wife’s!), buying theological books as a birthday present could be regarded as evidence of my wife she regards me as a heretic and in need of some orthodox teaching.

Other people might regard a romantic meal or some new clothes as the proper evidence of love. The point here is to show that books count as evidence of love only within the presuppositional frame-work of our particular relationship and, even then, strictly speaking, only within my presuppositional framework. Presuppositions control how we interpret evidence and this means the Christian apologist cannot regard the presentation of evidence as a blank cheque that, when cashed, guarantees belief in the Bible. V. Philips Long makes the same point in his discussion of archaeology, a discipline often relied on either to prove or disprove the reliability of biblical history. He shows that the material remains unearthed by archaeology do not in fact speak at all, but must be interpreted on some basis: once the researcher begins to analyse the evidence, theoretical concerns begin to transform the archaeological evidence into an historical account. In this sense archaeological evidence, despite its brute factuality, is no more objective than any other type of evidence.[32]

The second thing to note here arises from a passage such as Romans1.This outlines how the evidence about God in nature is ‘clearly seen’ and so leaves sinners ‘without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).

Although the passage raises a host of questions to do with general revelation and common grace,33 it is important to realize that Paul’s argument here is that the apprehension of God’s revelation of himself in creation has become marred by our sin - we are guilty of suppressing the truth we are presented with (Romans 1:18). This means that we must understand the Christian presenta tion of evidence, whether for the Bible or anything else of apologetic interest, to be a presentation of moral obligation. That is to say, as Frame states, the evidence

rightly obligates consent. A believing response to this revelation is not merely optional; it is required ...Thus the evidential argument is demonstrative, not merely probable.[34]

This is an important point, as it highlights that the essential apologetic task is not to achieve intellectual assent after all the evidence has been presented, but to call for faith and repentance. This is also another possible criticism of Reformed epistemology - it is concerned to establish epistemic rights, what we may believe, but says little about epistemic obligations, what we should believe.[35]

‘Classical apologetics’ and Christ and the Bible

Before I come to some concluding reflections it will be helpful to consider an approach to the truth of the Bible known as ‘classical apologetics’ and to compare this with the influential work of John Wenham. Both schools of thought lead us to the vital issue of the role that Christ’s view of the Bible should have in our discussion.

The classical apologetics line, as represented by thinkers such as R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley,[36] seeks to prove the divine origin of the Bible by taking as the starting
premise the Bible’s general historical reliability. The argument runs as follows:

Premise1. The Bible is a basically trustworthy document.

Premise 2. On the basis of this (generally) reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus is the Son of God.

Premise 3.: Jesus Christ, being the Son of God, is an infallible authority.

Premise 4.: Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy: it is the very Word of God.

Premise5.: The Word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.

Conclusion: On the basis of the infallible authority of Christ, the Church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy, infallible and authoritative.[37]

This argument is important because it introduces the concept that Christ’s teaching about the Bible is vital for our doctrine of Scripture. However, this route of getting to Christ’s teaching is significantly flawed and should be rejected as an apologetic device.

R. L. Reymond states the case:
I do not believe the progression is a valid argument in that the conclusion declares more than the original premise will allow. If one approaches these issues without Christian presuppositions, one can only conclude at best that the Bible is probably, or even possibly, God’s Word.[38]

Similarly, John Frame adds:

The [proponents of this view] overestimate, I think, the current scholarly consensus on the reliability of the Gospels. They assume that almost every NT scholar will concede that the Gospels are ‘generally reliable.’ I doubt it.[39]

Some scholars, of course, have argued well for the historical reliability of the Gospels and my argument does not mean to deny the validity of the historical-critical method in itself.40 Rather, my point here is to show that even this method of arguing for belief in the Bible simply locates the heart of the argument in the historical arena, and historical study cannot be allowed either to hold belief in the Bible hostage until all the evidence is in, or to expect to conduct its business entirely free of presuppositional interference. The classical apologetics position falls foul of accepting a supposedly ‘neutral’ approach to history and evidence, as if pre-suppositions can all somehow be set aside and the data be evaluated entirely free from interfering frameworks of interpretation for that history and evidence. From a more theological point of view, it is vital to note that the Christian does not believe that the Bible is God’s Word simply because Jesus taught that it was.

The fact that Jesus did teach this (Matthew 4:4,7,10; 19:4-5; 22:29; Luke 16:17; John 10:35; 16:12-14) is sometimes outlined among Christians as the primary reason why we believe the Bible is God’s Word, but this is not so. The issue must be decided further back than that - as we have seen, it is decided formally by the truthfulness of God and materially by the divine origin of the words.[41]

If Christians state that the reason they believe the Bible is authoritative is because Jesus said so, and unbelievers respond by asking how they know Jesus actually said the things those Gospel passages report, how would they respond? By arguing that there is good evidence that those passages are historical, as do Sproul et al.? But at the very least this would be exposing that the real reason why the believer believes the Bible is not because of Jesus’ teaching, but because they hold that it is generally historically reliable. It is very helpful to compare this sort of reasoning about Christ and the Scriptures with the argument of John Wenham in his seminal work Christ and the Bible.42 It could be argued that Wenham is unclear about the starting point for his argument - he seems to be similar to the classical apologists with statements such as:

if the Gospels are substantially true, we are justified in regarding as historical those features in them which are often repeated and which are found in a variety of Gospel strata.[43]

However, this would be an unfair representation, as for Wenham it seems clear that how we come to believe that the Gospels are substantially true is actually a matter of faith. Consider the following lengthy quotation:

[This argument] starts by accepting as valid the characteristic Christian experience of conversion. A convert from a non-Christian religion or from modern secular society seldom arrives at the decisive moment of faith with a view of biblical inspiration already formulated in his mind. His quest is a wrestling with the Christ portrayed in the New Testament and witnessed to by Christians. As he progresses in his search the Gospels seem to him more and more to have the ring of truth. At last he comes to the moment when he says, ‘Lord, I believe.’ He has arrived at faith with a conviction about the basic truth of the New Testament witness to Christ, but without necessarily any clear beliefs about the truth or falsity of many of the details or about the status of the Bible as a whole. God has become real to him in Christ through the external witness of the gospel and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. In conversion he has made the discovery that God, made known in Jesus Christ, is the centre and starting-point of all true knowledge. Growth in the knowledge of things of God (which includes progress in theological understanding) comes by holding fast to the centre and by working outwards from there (emphasis added). There is a progression: God; God revealing himself; God revealing himself supremely in Christ; Christ teaching the truth of Scripture; finally, with Scripture as a guide, the Christian exploring the apparently limitless jungle which makes up the world of phenomena.[44]

Wenham’s argument here is important as it helps us to make the distinction between faith in Christ through the gospel and faith in Christ’s teaching about the Bible. The distinction here is not between two dierent faiths, but between the logical order of progression whereby we come to accept that the Bible is true. That is to say, it is saving faith in Christ that first of all gives conviction about the truth of Christ; and it is through this saving faith that the Holy Spirit is at work to bring conviction about the truth of the biblical witness to Christ. This is not an inadequate answer to the question of why we believe the Bible but, as we have seen in the illustration about my relationship with my wife, it does not have to be the end of the matter.

It can lead us to our next position - faith in Christ’s teaching about the Bible. Christ’s teaching about the Scriptures forms part of the material evidence for the divine origin of the Bible, but it is not the sole or even foundational reason why we believe the Bible. Jesus’ teaching about the Scriptures shows us that the presupposition we have arrived at because of the work of the Spirit through the gospel, testifying to the veracity and character of God, is a correct presupposition to have. Before we even come to look at Jesus’ teaching about the Bible we can be con...dent that those words that tell us what Jesus’ teaching is, are true and authoritative words. This helps us to know how to respond to our unbelieving friends who ask how we know Jesus actually said the things those Gospel passages report. In the very first instance it is because of our conversion, because of faith, the gospel and the work of the Spirit. We believe that Jesus said the things the Bible claims he said because we believe in Jesus, we believe that the gospel is true and that the work of the Spirit is a reality in our experience.

At this point it is worth commenting on the alternative view-point I mentioned at the start, namely that the whole issue of arguing for belief in the truthfulness of the Bible is beside the point and obscures the fact that we are called to trust in Christ, not the Bible. This point is well taken if it is meant to highlight the dangers of bibliolatry and exalting the Bible above Christ. However, in much recent theology this viewpoint is expressed as a way of wanting to sit loose to some of the tricky issues about the full truthfulness and reliability of the Bible. It locates the authority of the Bible not in the fact of God speaking but in the person of Jesus Christ.[45] This position should be resisted for a couple of reasons. First, this position does not go far enough in pressing home its own fundamental premise that the key issue with the Bible is to point us to faith in Christ through the gospel. Once we take this as our starting point we are bound then to ask what believing the gospel of Christ actually means. Peter Jensen explains:

The key consequence of accepting the gospel is, therefore, that Jesus Christ becomes our Lord, exercising the authority of his kingdom in our lives. From the gospel, we can see both what the nature of his authority must be and also the means by which he exerts it. The instrument of his authority is the word . . . [46]

This means that the Bible itself cannot be simply a witness to the authority of Christ without any inherent authority itself. It is the word of the Sovereign Lord. It is the means by which he exercises his sovereign rule over us. The words of the Bible carry the authority of the author. As Jensen shows, this is something we accept in everyday life as in the receiving of a letter from a good friend. We do not ignore the letter and say to our friend, ‘I did not believe your words because they were not you.’ On the contrary, as we treat the words so we treat the author of the words.[47]

Furthermore, it could be added that at the very least the lordship of Christ obligates us to accept his own teaching about the Bible as being authoritative and trustworthy in its entirety.

A second criticism is that this position actually works with an illogical divide between the particular words of the Bible that tell us about Christ and the Bible’s own theological claim that all its words are God’s words. Not far beneath the surface here is discomfort with the traditional understanding of inspiration, perhaps due to a mistaken belief that regarding the whole of Scripture as the breathed-out words of God leads to a flattening of the diversity of the Bible and interpretive ignorance of its different literary genres. However, Timothy Ward has recently argued extremely cogently that, first, the traditional understanding of inspiration is more than equal to these criticisms and, second, that the primacy of Christ in the biblical revelation can actually only be secured by a robust belief in the sufficiency of the whole canon of Scripture to
testify about him. As he states:

If ‘Jesus Christ’ is set up as the sole unquestionable principle of the self-interpretation of Scripture, the ‘centre’ in the light of which other parts of Scripture are judged not to witness truly to him, to fall short of his gospel ...then the ‘Jesus Christ’ in terms of whom we read Scripture will be a Jesus Christ whose identity is formed for us only partly by Scripture - probably by those parts which most appeal to us.[48]

Conclusion

I am now in a position to offer a few reflections on some of the issues raised at the start of this chapter, and will draw the various strands of my argument together in the following four points:
1. It should be obvious by now that a coherent theology of belief in the Bible means that we do not have just a solitary argument for why we believe what we believe about the Bible. The issue
facing us is not whether evidence has any role in our belief, or whether we must think only of the gospel and the work of the Spirit. Rather, the real challenge we face is to understand the
theological relationship between matters such as the gospel, faith, internal and external evidence. It will be helpful to try to tease out a little of what the systematic relationship between these topics actually means.

2..This chapter has suggested that the foundational issue at stake here is actually the Christian gospel - the truth about Jesus Christ, our sin-blinded perception of reality, and our need of
salvation from the wrath to come. In grasping the truth of the Bible, the work of the Spirit is paramount to enable us to embrace spiritual truths. This means that as we think about discrete topics such as why we believe in the Bible, our starting point must be to operate with the gospel as rationale and presupposition in all our thinking. The same is true in other matters of Christian belief, for example in giving a reason for the Christian world view on suffering, or other religions. At the heart of Christian thinking is belief in the gospel and how this aects all areas of epistemology and theological reflection. This essentially means that the discipline of apologetics, for instance, cannot afford to see itself as anything other than contextual evangelism. To return to Jo and Alex at the start of this chapter, Alex’s questions should actually be grasped as an opportunity to share the truth of the gospel as it pertains to belief in the Bible. For Jo to pretend that she believes because she understands and knows simply because of hard evidence, is to deny the reality that she knows because she has first believed - and her belief in Christ needs to be brought to bear on all the different issues related to belief in the Bible.

3. Further, to develop the issue of apologetics a little, what we have seen in this chapter means that the use of evidence for the Bible needs to be married to a solid understanding of how
presuppositions function in arguing for biblical truth. It demands a creative apologetic that does not use evidence as the foundation or trump card in the armoury. We have no ‘brute’ or ‘plain’ facts that are somehow incontrovertible evidence for the truth of the Bible. Therefore, most importantly, we should exercise care in using evidence as the proof of biblical truth. Christian apologists may well find a role in their argument for stating, for instance, that archaeology shows that Gallio was the proconsul of Achaia as Acts 18:12 says. But it is incompatible with Christian belief about the Bible to give the impression that such archaeology is vital to our faith or somehow gives the Bible a reliability it did not have before the discovery was made. In short, what we are arguing for here is the integrity in apologetic presentation that our presuppositions demand - we must be prepared to argue that our belief in the Bible is not based on all the evidence for the Bible.

4. It follows closely from this that a theological understanding of evidentialism means that any presentation of evidence to do with revelation must be coupled with a presentation of the
moral obligation that such evidence warrants. We are prone to think that the gospel calls for faith and repentance, while all the evidence for the Bible calls for only aroused interest or
intellectual credibility. However, on Paul’s example in Acts ..:., people’s ignorance in grasping both evidence and the meaning of that evidence is a culpable act of moral rebellion that leaves them facing God’s judgment. The Christian use of revelatory evidence cannot be ‘look and decide for yourself ’, but ‘look and repent.’

Taken together, then, these points mean that Christian belief in the Bible rests on a number of different factors, all of which exist in a clear theological relationship to each other. The starting point of our faith in Christ means that our confidence is placed firmly in the gospel and the work of the Spirit. Through these means we are able to experience the ‘utter certainty’ about the Bible that Calvin described, ‘just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself ’. This gospel presupposition and rationale embraces the Bible’s truthfulness and reliability because of God’s truthfulness, because the Bible’s words are God’s words, and because Jesus himself regarded the Bible in this way. It works out from here to see all the internal evidence that the Scriptures are from God himself, and its examination of all the external evidence is coupled with the gospel presupposition that God has actually given us all the evidence we need to know that he is there and to believe in him.

Endnotes

[1] Presuppositionalism is a position which holds that there are certain primary beliefs or truths that must be presupposed when approaching all other articles of knowledge. Evidentialism is a position which requires that evidence or reasons are necessary to hold belief rationally.

[2] See the discussion in D.A.Carson, The Gagging of God (Leicester: Apollos, 1996) pp95-96, 184-189. Here various approaches to apologetics are discussed within the context of fresh challenges created by postmodernism.

[3] See R.Rauser, Let Reason Be Your Guide? A Brief Introduction to Reformed Epistemology (Leicester: Religious and Theological Studies Fellowship Monographs, 2001)

[4] J.I.Packer “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (London: IVF, 1958), pp 118-119

[5] J.Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (tr. F.L. Battles; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), pp79-80

[6] See G.W. Bromiley, “The Authority of Scripture in Karl Barth”, in D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), pp275-294

[7] See J.Frame, “The Spirit and the Scriptures”, in Carson and Woodbridge, Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, p222.

[8] “Fundamentalism”, p117

[9] Ibid, pp119, 121.

[10] See P.Helm, “The Perfect Trustworthiness of God” in P.Helm and C.R. Trueman (eds.) The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), pp237-252

[11] See Wayne Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scipture” in D.A. Carson and J.D Woodbridge (eds.), Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker,. 1983), pp19-59

[12] It should be noted that this viewpoint says only that we believe in advance of the truthfulness of the text before we come to it, not the meaning of the text. It does not invalidate historical-grammatical exegesis and interpretation. See J.I.Packer, God Has Spoken: Revelation and the Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1965) p105

[13] See L.Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapis: Eerdmans, 1932), pp182-185, who states “We should bear in mind that the particular work of the Holy Spirit described by this name does not satnd by itself, but is connected with the whole work of the Holy Spirit in the application of the redemption wrought in Christ”

[14] “Fundamentalism”, p120

[15] P.Helm, “Faith, Evidence and the Scriptures” in Carson and Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth, pp303-320; idem, The Divine Revelati8on (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), especially pp71-88

[16] Divine Revelations, p73. Helm argues that though it is possible to combine these two positions, between them they exhaust the possible patterns of justification.

[17] See Helm’s extended discussion of the externalist views of Archibald Alexander (1772-1851), the influential Princeton theologian in “Fath, Evidence”, pp305-306, and also of Locke and reason in Divine Reelation pp73-38.

[18] Divine Revelation, pp78-79.

[19] R.L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p80

[20] J.Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987), p130

[21] Ibid., p131

[22] Ibid.

[23] Frame, “Spirit and the Scriptures”, p232.

[24] Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.5

[25] Institutes, 1.8.1, 82

[26] A. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Se also his “Reason and Belief in God”, in A.Plantinga and N.Wolterstorff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).

[27] Quoted in Rauser, Let Reason by Your Guide? p.41

[28] See particularly the criticism of George Mavrodes, outlined in Frame, about Plantinga and Wolterstorff’s devaluing of positive apologetics, as well as Frame’s own observations in “The New Reformed Epistemology” (Appendix I), Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, pp391ff.

[29] See also the excellent brief treatment of Reformed epistemology in D.A.Carson and J.D. Woodbridge, Letters Along the Way: A Novel of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993), pp.149-157

[30] Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p143.

[31] Ibid., pp146-147

[32] V.Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History (Leicester: Apollos:, 1994), p144, quoting F.Brandfon, “The Limits of Evidence; Archaeology and Objectivity”, Maarar 4/1 (1987), p30.

[33] On the question of how these issues relate to the Bible see A.N.S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan”, in P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright (eds.), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp297-327.

[34] Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p142.

[35] See Carson, Gagging of God, p188, and Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p384.

[36] R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).

[37] R.C. Sproul, Reasons to Believe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), pp30-31.

[38] New Systematic Theology, pp74-75

[39] J. Frame, “Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic”, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985), p297

[40] See, e.g., Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1987), especially pp234-254.

[41] See Packer “Fundamentalism”, p117

[42] J.Wenham, Christ and the Bible (3rd edn.; Guildford: Eagle, 1993). First Published in 1972

[43] Ibid.,p13.

[44] Ibid.,p14.

[45] See, e.g., Francis Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), p1. John Barton, People of the Book? The Authority of the Bible in Christianity (London, SPCK: 1988), p83.

[46] Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God (Leicester: IVP, 2002), p153. Jensen develops this by demonstrating the convental nature of Scripture and showing how this is God’s instrument for ruling the convenant people.

[47] Ibid. p165.

[48] T.Ward, Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p292

October Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-10-02T22:13:00.000+01:00

	The Supremacy of God in Preaching (John Piper)
	Preaching and Biblical Theology (Thomas Schreiner)

September Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-08-26T17:21:00.000+01:00

"Serpent Crusher or Serpent Crushers":
Preaching the gospel in light of Genesis 3
A Biblical Theology Briefing
Simon Flinders, St Thomas' North Sydney, Australia

"The Second Mark of a Healthy Church Member:
Biblical Theologian
Thabiti Anyabwile, First Baptist Church, Grand Cayman

More from Thabiti at purechurch.blogspot.com

The Skull-Crushing Seed
James Hamilton, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Houston, Texas, USA

Songs of the Servant: Isaiah's Good News
Henri Blocher

All biblical narrative is about Messiah-Jesus.

2006-08-22T23:02:00.000+01:00

Mark Lauterbach is studying Ezra-Nehemiah:

"I am studying through Ezra-Nehemiah these days as we lead the church in understanding how God fulfills his promises for his everlasting kingdom. Set in the century after the exile, these books record the activity of God to rebuild the temple, the law, and the city of Jerusalem.

It would be very easy to study these for purely historical interest. Or, more commonly, to study these for "leadership principles." Neither of these is true to a Gospel driven approach. All biblical narrative is about Messiah-Jesus. This is not exception.

The opening verses of Ezra are a thunderclap about God's ways.

Ezra 1:1 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom.

Here is what God has taught me.

These words seem simple, as a record of history, but behind them lies the covenant of God with Abraham -- a covenant to bless all nations through his ultimate Messiah-son. That covenant restrained the hand of God's justice against his people so that a remnant survived. That covenant God is working to fulfill here.

Behind them lies the covenant at Sinai and the clear conditions of obedience and the blessing of the land that will follow, or the curses of judgment that come with disobedience. Those curses came to pass after 800 years of patience by God toward his people. That covenant failed and the new covenant became a "felt need."

Behind these words lies the promise of God through Isaiah -- that God would raise up the King Cyrus, and through him he would rebuild the city and the temple after exile. (see Isaiah 44-45).

Behind these words lies the promise of God through Jeremiah (ch 25 and 29) that the exile would last 70 years.

Carl Trueman's I ♥ Biblical Theology

2006-08-21T17:55:00.000+01:00

"if Lloyd Jones led the revolution which placed preaching back at the centre of British evangelicalism, the biblical theology movement has led the second revolution which has put careful attention to Christ-centred exegesis back at the centre of preaching."
(The Wages of Spin, p171 - A revolutionary balancing act)

"No-one should be allowed within a million miles of a pulpit who does not have a proper respect for biblical theology in terms of the overall story of redemptive history, a firm greasp of the importance of systematic theology, creeds and confession and a critical handle of contemporary culture."
(The Wages of Spin, p185)

Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology?

2006-08-13T20:19:00.000+01:00

Matt Harmon writes:

"Acknowledging the necessary caveats that we do not come to the text as blank slate but with presuppositions (including those informed by systematics), I tend to think that biblical theology (BT) should precede systematic theology (ST) insofar as it attempts to let each book, author, etc. speak on its own terms. One of the great dangers of ST is the possibility of flattening out distinctive contributions for the sake of a clean way of organizing the "data," not to mention the danger of ignoring the narrative shape of God's revelation of himself in Scripture. This is not to say that God does not reveal himself in "propositional" truth, but rather to acknowledge that he reveals himself in other ways as well in Scripture.

On the other hand, one of the dangers of BT is the tendency of some to so emphasize the distinctive contributions of each part of the canon that they fail to pursue its larger coherence. Also, there are some theological conclusions that BT probably cannot achieve without ST, such as the Trinity."

(more reasons why) I ♥ Biblical Theology

2006-08-10T08:53:00.000+01:00

"good biblical theology is
theology for the church,
which drives the church
to worship."

- Alistair Wilson, reviewing
GK Beale: The Temple & The Church's Mission

A few words about The Temple & The Church's Mission.

Beale himself writes:

our task as the covenant community, the Church, is to be God’s temple, so filled with his glorious presence that we expand and fill the earth with that presence until God finally accomplishes the goal completely at the end of time (p. 402).

Wilson:

"This is not an abstract study of the architecture and furnishings of the temple, as some prospective readers might fear from the title alone. Rather, it is about the biblical revelation of the Lord’s personal presence with his people and the implications of that fact for the rest of creation."

Special August Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-07-31T19:24:00.000+01:00

Special Offer on Liam Goligher's The Jesus Gospel, and David Jackman's preaching lecture from EMA now online at www.beginningwithmoses.org

UPDATE: 16-August-2006The special offer has now expired. But, Jonathan Carswell at 10ofthose.com is able to off many great offers on books.

Michael Lawrence does Biblical Theology

2006-07-31T09:57:00.000+01:00

Michael Lawrence is preaching a series on Biblical Theology at Capitol Hill Baptist Church.

Mark Dever's series are also worth a listen:

"Say the word "theology" at a dinner party, and you might get some interesting looks. Talk about the specifics of Biblical theology in particular, and you may just take a dinner roll to the head. Theology is not so popular today, even in some churches. But could it be that Biblical theology is more important for the life and health of the local church than we've previously realized?"

9Marks ministries: Biblical Theology

I ♥ Biblical Theology

2006-07-27T17:15:00.000+01:00

I love Biblical Theology.
And I love it for one reason.
It helps me know Jesus Christ better

Nicholas Piotrowski, reviewing books by Graeme Goldsworthy & Vaughan Roberts at 9Marks.org

Theology for All : Conference

2006-07-24T09:24:00.000+01:00

"Church and Theology Today:
What is Really at Stake?"

Theology for All: Annual Day Conference
Saturday 30th September 2006
10.00 am - 4.00 pm

Speaker: Professor Carl Trueman,

Carl is currently Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He previously served on the Faculties of the University of Nottingham and the University of Aberdeen. A specialist in 16th and 17th century theology, he has also written extensively on contemporary evangelical theology, edits the student journal Themelios, and has a monthly column in the ezine, Reformation 21. Dr Trueman's books include Luther's Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers, 1525-1556; The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology; and The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historic and Contemporary Evangelicalism.

Programme (details t.b.c.)
10.00 Arrival & coffee
10.30 1st Session
11.30 Coffee break
12.00 2nd Session
1.00 Lunch
2.00 3rd Session
3.00 Tea break
3.20 Q&A
4.00 Finish

Location:
Duke Street Church, Richmond, West London.

Cost £10.00 TFA members / £15.00 non-members
Lunch and refreshments are provided.

For Details and Booking (required) contact:
rtsf@uccf.org.uk
0116 204 7682

Location and Directions can be found at www.dukestreetchurch.com

*Theology for All is the new name for the Tyndale Fellowship Associates.

In Pursuit of the Truth

2006-07-19T22:34:00.000+01:00

Derek Bigg has a blog based around his book:

Learning to think biblically: its principles and practice
In Pursuit of the Truth

Equipping the Church

2006-07-12T08:38:00.000+01:00

Preaching Now:

"If the goal of ministry is to "equip the church for works of service," then how should we preachers feel about a comment like "I would have never been able to understand that psalm without you?" Sure our egos purr like a kitten with that sweet stroke, but what about the dear saint who has just confessed an inability to discover the riches of Scripture on her own? Shouldn't our preaching lead our listeners to become better and better interpreters? Won't good preaching make others less dependent on the preachers?"

More helpful quotes and thoughts on preaching from Milton Stanley

gratitude & hoopla: Grace-blogging

2006-07-11T23:10:00.000+01:00

gratitude & hoopla: Grace-blogging

"In the little epistle to Jude near the very end of our Bible, the unknown author warns about "ungodly people, who pervert the grace of God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Notice how closely associated are the perversion of grace and the denial of Christ's lordship. Christ and grace are inextricably bound. To preach grace is to preach Christ, and especially His cross. A preacher may have many other things to say and do, but if in the midst of it all he loses this focus, he is no longer preaching the Gospel."

Assuming the Gospel?

2006-06-18T20:31:00.000+01:00

Assumptions and Pursuits - by Mark Dever
Picking up similar ideas to: David Gibson: Assumed Evangelicalism

June Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-06-04T13:43:00.000+01:00

No updates at beginningwithmoses.org in July & August. We'll return with new material in September. Until then here's some new stuff to keep you going!

Cross-shaped Wisdom
A Biblical Theology Briefing
On 1 Corinthians 1
by Lionel Winsdor

On the dangers of
Christian shorthand:
"word ministry"
by Christopher Ash

Knowing the Holy Spirit
through the Old Testament
Christopher Wright

Bargain Christian Books

2006-05-22T13:46:00.000+01:00

Jonathan Carswell presents: www.10ofthose.com

Paul Helm on John Calvin

2006-05-17T16:42:00.000+01:00

Below is my review of a recent book by Paul Helm on John Calvin. This review was published in Themelios Vol. 31.3 (April 2006).

For a different take see Scott Oliphant's review at Ref21 but I think he misreads Helm somewhat - see Helm's response accompanying the review. Stephen N. Williams has also given it a positive review in Religious Studies 41, 467-488.

John Calvin’s Ideas
Paul Helm
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
viii + 438 pages, hardback, £63
ISBN: 0-19-925569-5
__________________________

This is John Calvin in the hands of a competent philosopher. Helm’s study seeks to reveal Calvin as a theologian who nevertheless displayed considerable familiarity with a wide range of philosophical conceptualities which he was willing to utilise, disparage, or tailor depending on his particular concerns. The result is a wonderful treat for Calvin scholars, philosophers and theologians. For any who are interested in Calvin for reasons other than his use of philosophical ideas it will be hard not to find a number of areas where Helm’s study intersects with other issues in Calvin studies (such as his exegesis) and sheds invaluable light on them.

Helm is clear that Calvin was neither a philosopher nor a philosophical theologian and he does not try to turn him into one. However, his Calvin clearly resides in the radically reshaped world of the medieval tradition which has emerged from the work of (among others) Richard Muller. As an heir to certain strands in late medieval Augustinianism, this Calvin is willing to use the distinctions of the schools when he finds it beneficial to do so and he exhibits a use of scholastic method in intellectual inquiry that makes it difficult to place him in radical discontinuity with Protestant scholasticism. A recurring feature of Helm’s study is to show how Calvin’s ideas had precedence in the medieval tradition, particularly in Thomas, such that some of his theological ideas are not easily disentangled from philosophical associations.

We are led through Calvin’s thought by progressing from metaphysical questions (the Trinity, Christology, providence), to anthropological ones (the soul, free will), and then to epistemology (accommodation, natural theology and the sensus divinitatis, revelation). A return to metaphysics in a chapter on the angels acts as a bridge to questions of morality and ethics as seen in Calvin’s view of the relationship between divine power and goodness and in his appeal to natural law. A fascinating final chapter deals with matters of causation, time and change as they present themselves in Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement. The discussion is demanding in plenty of places but the rewards of a good wrestle with the text are immense. Throughout, Helm works with very fine distinctions, often between two different concepts (usually found in Calvin or the tradition), which when analysed with his philosophical precision become extremely helpful tools for understanding how Calvin’s ideas are functioning. For example, in the final chapter Helm’s discussion of Calvin’s distinction between justification (what Christ achieved) and personal justification (what I appropriate by faith), related to Calvin’s happy use of an Aristotelian fourfold causal schema in explaining justification, is a marvellous example of how the theological hot water we can get into when relating faith and works can be tremendously cooled by some conceptual precision in the use of terms like ‘cause’ and ‘condition’ (404-6).

Helm states that his book contains no treatment of predestination because this has been wrongly held to be Calvin’s central dogma and axiomatic first principle; by ignoring it here Helm feels he can underline the plurality of Calvin’s ideas. This is arguably a substantial loss for us and for Calvin: we do not get the chance to see Calvin’s doctrine of predestination explored with the same care and sympathy as his other ideas and I doubt the central dogma charge is removed from Calvin’s door simply by leaving it out. The doctrine needs to be explained from the inside out, as it were, and shown to draw on a wide range of separate metaphysical and anthropological presuppositions which surface throughout all of Calvin’s work such that ‘predestination’ cannot control the whole. At points Helm in fact touches on the doctrine in exactly this way and it would have been good to see more in this truly fine study.

May Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-05-01T08:00:00.000+01:00

	Preaching and Pastoral Ministry Peter Adam
	The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made Mark Dever

Expository Exultation

2006-04-30T13:28:00.000+01:00

"Where will the weight of God's glory be felt if not in the preaching of the Word?"

John Piper's preaching at Together for the Gospel has drawn attention what he calls expository exultation as he spoke on Why Expositional Preaching is Particularly Glorifying to God. A while back we were able to publish an article by him on this:

Preaching as Worship:
Meditations of Expository Exultation
(John Piper)

Discerning Reader

2006-04-26T13:40:00.000+01:00

Challies launches:
www.discerningreader.com

Biblical Theology Blog

2006-04-19T08:18:00.000+01:00

Visitors to this site might be interested to know about a new blog devoted to biblical theology. It's run by Matt Harmon who is finishing off his Ph.D in biblical theology at Wheaton, under Doug Moo. The blog looks set to contain plenty of excellent discussion of exegetical issues from a biblical theology perspective, as well as being a great source of comment on good BT books. Check it out.

It's all about you, Jesus

2006-04-12T22:31:00.000+01:00

Dan Cruver:

"Only “Christo-centric” preaching can really lead the hearers to true virtue, gospel holiness. Typical preaching only distills “Biblical Principles” which do not see the text in its redemptive-historical context. Thus it is only natural that the application part of such a sermon will tend to merely exhort people to conform to the principles. Only Christo-centric preaching can produce gospel holiness.."

Is it a Christ-centred Sermon? (8 posts)

Dave Cruver:

""The Gospel of our God-Centered God changes everything for His Glory and our joy."

Few things are as exciting as seeing lives and relationships changed through the Gospel of Jesus the Christ Who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings and the Savior of mankind."

What am I known for?
Christ-centred preaching

April Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-04-11T10:34:00.000+01:00

	Arguing for Expository Preaching (Peter Adam)
	Reviewed by Tim Anderson: Dig Deeper (Nigel Beynon & Andrew Sach)

March Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-03-01T07:45:00.000Z

AFTER THE FLOOD:
A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BRIEFING
ON GENESIS 8-9
(DAVID HORROCKS)

REVIEWED BY DAVE BISH:
AT THE HEART OF THE UNIVERSE
(PETER JENSEN)

REDEMPTIVE HISTORY AND
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
(GEERHARDUS VOS)

Event: The Promised King

2006-02-28T19:44:00.000Z

The Promised King: Great David's Greater Son

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE QUESTION OF WHO JESUS IS CONTINUES TO BE ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS IN THE THEOLOGICAL ACADEMY.

At this year’s RTSF conference, T. Desmond Alexander will look at the theme of the promised seed in the Old Testament. He will unfold for us the promise of a divinely appointed king, through whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed. We will then see how this is fulfilled in Jesus, who is the promised Kingly Messiah.

Saturday, 18 March, Knighton Evangelical Free Church, Leicester.

Download the Booking form (PDF)

Blog-Review: The Message of the New Testament

2006-02-20T22:37:00.000Z

An official beginningwithmoses.org review of this book will follow in the near future... but until then here's some thoughts on our current top recommendation...

The Message of the New Testament:
Promises Kept - Mark Dever, (Crossway 2006).
Foreword by John MacArthur

This book is sure to become an essential resource for preacher in particular, but also for any Christian wanting to read the Bible. Its vital for us to read the Bible slowly, spending much time on the details.... but we also need to be able to read the detail in context.

There is a burgeoning market in Bible Overview books, a parade led by Graeme Goldsworthy, Vaughan Roberts and Tim Chester amongst others. Their work is vital to help us think about Biblical Theology.

All those brief overviews lack something however. And that is where Mark Dever steps in. This book steps into the void between detailed ongoing expositions of single books and Bible overview books. Dever invites to fly high and get a birds eye view. What a view!

This book is a write up of 28 sermons by Mark Dever taking one book of the Bible per sermon (plus one on the whole New Testament overview). These sermons have been delivered over the course of many years and must have been wonderful to hear.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Overview has the potential weakness of having too little detail and accuracy. This is not a weakness Dever has - he has clearly dug deeply into each book in his preparation and then put much care and attention into presenting that memorably and accessibly.

One of Dever's great strengths comes in his introductions to each sermon - his illustration and connection with the main theme of the book is exemplary. He then carefully handles the text of each book.

The danger of any book like this is that it might stop us from doing the careful work ourselves. That would be to misuse Dever's work. Rather it should drive us into the texts ourselves. And that is his intent. Having read through a book of the Bible a few times Dever's book comes into its own showing us some of the landmarks and helping us enjoy the view and sit humbly before God's word.

As we work our way towards understanding the the word of God more thoroughly this birds eye view of the New Testament, and the forthcoming Old Testament volume, are a great gift to the wider church. He demostrates a passion for God's word and a desire to help his congregation get to grips with God's word for themselves.

I hope that this book will be readily available in the UK in the near future. Until then I'm thankful to have this companion with me as I read God's word.

Download the Audio sermons

A New Kind of Generous

2006-02-10T08:29:00.000Z

The writers over at Credenda Agenda are well known for their satire and sharp take on the world, theology, and all things evanjellyfluff.

But here's a review that breaks the mould somewhat - it's a generous review of Brian McClaren's A New Kind of Christian. It's written by Brendan O'Donnell and for every finger pointing at McClaren there's a few more pointing back.

(BTW, this current edition of Credenda is entirely devoted to the weather! Let me also recommend Ben Merkle's wonderful piece 'Snow'. The whole magazine is available online).

February Update at BeginningWithMoses.org

2006-02-06T10:34:00.000Z

THEOLOGY OF THE LAND
(STEPHEN SIZER)

WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

(ANDREAS KÖSTENBERGER
& THOMAS SCHREINER)

REVIEWED BY DAVID GIBSON

THE CROSS FROM A DISTANCE
(PETER BOLT)
REVIEWED BY JUSTIN MOTE

DIG DEEPER!
TOOLS TO UNEARTH
THE BIBLE'S TREASURE
(NIGEL BEYNON
& ANDREW SACH)