Scripture is the authoritve source of what to know about God and what He has done. It is revelation which God has spoken through His various servants over the span of Earth's history. With Scripture ends the question of "who is god?" and begins the question "who is God?" When man comes into contact with Scripture (or more specifically the word of God), he comes to understand that this god who he has been curious about is the God of all things. Scripture provides the information needed to understand who God is. In fact, what is so unique about Scripture, unlike other sources one derives truth from, is it IS the "words of God".
Its time to break this down in a more formulaic process:
God created everything (minus evil) - God intervened in His creation - God, through His Spirit, spoke through specific people (His most cherished of all creation) to accurately record and witness to what God had done and will do - this spoken word came into writing which is known as revelation - this revelation, known as Scripture is wrapped up into a book - the "book" is called the Bible. Thus what the Bible says is true because it is the very words of God!Now considering God is perfect and can contain no fault [Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2; Rom. 3:4] then what God speaks or "theopneustos" (breathes out) must be flawless. Take note of 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
"All Scripture is breathed out (theopneustos) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
When 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is examined, Scripture is solidified in its function: what God has spoken (that which is now contained in a book we call the Bible) must be true. This brings up a few issues. For one, this proves that Scripture is what the Christian must base his whole world view upon and from which he is to derive anything decisive and "absolutely true" regarding the things of God and the proper way of Christian living. The more a Christian stems away from deriving truth absolutely from Scripture, the more "unorthodox" or possibly "heretical" the Christian can become [I will expand upon this issue in a later blog]. Another issue is what does a Christian do with those parts of the Bible that "apparently" contradict or parallel accounts containing "tensions"? There are two things a Christian must know in response to this question:
Presupposition: God is perfect, thus His word must be perfect with no errors of any kind.
-Pillar #1: If a part of God's word "apparently" contradicts, then it is due to the readers personal lack of knowledge that impairs the reader from seeing the flawless connection.
-Pillar #2: If a part of God's word "apparently" contradicts, then it is due to the lack of knowledge/evidence of modern man's current research. The proper context is yet to be entirely known to remedy the tension.
These two pillars are a logical and coherent derivative from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I believe it is important to note that what is "apparently" contradictory is simply that, "apparent". A "pure" contradiction is what is actually wrong. For example: Imagine there were two pieces of paper that were describing the same event. The first draft, A, said how when Joe was walking in the park at 10:30 AM August 5, 2007, the sky was blue. Then in draft, B, it said that when Joe was walking in the same park at the same time on the same day, the sky was green NOT blue, then that is an "ABSOLUTE" contradiction. Without a doubt the stories conflict. However, if draft B said "the sky was green" WITHOUT the last two words, then it would be an apparent contradiction. It is a tension but not ENTIRELY wrong. For one, it could be speculated that the green sky in draft B had a different purpose by saying green whilst the other draft did not. Or the sky in draft B did accurately describe the sky but from a different angle that A did not. Or even a third alternative could be that that the author's personal qualities have attributed to him/her perceiving green over blue.
Let's use one more example, but this time from Scripture. In Matthew 28:5, it said there was one angel at the tomb when Jesus was resurrected. In John 20:12, it said there were two. There have been several speculations on this tension, with many brilliant ideas and great solutions (although none can be proven 100%). Nevertheless, it is not a false account! What would make this account ACTUALLY false is if Matthew's account said there was ONLY one angel. This may appear like a thin thread, but the logic behind it is flawless: wherever there is two there is ALWAYS one.
It is essential at this portion of the blog to clarify what writings are the inerrant words of God. The ONLY inerrant words are the original texts written in the original languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. No other additional translation, ancient or modern, can claim to be the inerrant copy. Period.
I have briefly discussed the nature of God's word and its authoritative (and final) resource status for formulating a proper theology. But before I begin with discussing its first words about God's creative acts as recorded in Genesis 1:1, I must explain Scriptures function for the Christian life.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
1.0 - Where to launch the project
I believe my best direction (or goal perhaps?) for this blog is to not so much go through the Scriptures as a type of survey and then make some theological comment throughout. Not only does that rub up against the title of my blog, but as a consequence it goes against the overarching goal of "a theology". I want to build my theology up from ground zero with Scripture naturally falling into its necessary position. This does not mean my theology is absent from Scripture, but suggests that realistically speaking, a theology's first step does not begin with Scripture but with a quest "who is this 'god'": hence "THEOLOGY". The immediate step afterwards is Genesis 1:1 where Scripture comes into contact, ultimately refining and "re-defining" theology (a.k.a, Christian theology).
I suppose I could say my first step is a philosophical one, "who is god?" but this very question is more theological than philosophical. If I was to start with "why", perhaps philosophy would be the more appropriate word then theology (although "why should I believe in god" does have deep theological roots). I believe the quest for the identity of god deeply wrestles with the issues of god directly (more theological) unlike reasoning over why one must be compelled to do so (more philosophical). Maybe my opinion here is too subjective or overall petty, but the reader can decide for themselves.
Now I will start:
Who is god? This question is based on the presupposition(s) that either A) person X heard about this "god" and has since pondered the deity, B) person X has experienced/witnessed an event(s)/object(s) that has made person X ponder the work behind it, or C) all of the above. It is not important for this discussion to pick one over the other, but merely to reveal the options that drive people to ask the question in the first place. Option A speaks of a person who has heard a name they have never heard before and would like to know more about it. Option B, however, has two distinctive parts. The first part is a person who experiences something in their life which transcends the normality of this physical world that strongly compels them to think of someone or something that is behind the scene (i.e., supernatural). The second part is based on simple observance. This person sees the natural world they live in and can't help but wonder if what they see was created by someone other than mere natural process (i.e., a creator).
With these presuppositions established, we must now return to the question "who is god?" Whatever answers stem from this question will be dominantly (if not entirely) determined by one simple word, "authority". What resource will the person use to be authoritative in answering such a cosmic size question? Will it be nature? People? Scientists? Emotional whim? Or will it be the classic anthropocentric statement: "I think, therefore I am"? This last one takes the biggest class because most people prefer to determine god's existence/non-existence and character by THEIR understanding and THEIR reason alone.
My answer is: The Holy Bible.
I suppose I could say my first step is a philosophical one, "who is god?" but this very question is more theological than philosophical. If I was to start with "why", perhaps philosophy would be the more appropriate word then theology (although "why should I believe in god" does have deep theological roots). I believe the quest for the identity of god deeply wrestles with the issues of god directly (more theological) unlike reasoning over why one must be compelled to do so (more philosophical). Maybe my opinion here is too subjective or overall petty, but the reader can decide for themselves.
Now I will start:
Who is god? This question is based on the presupposition(s) that either A) person X heard about this "god" and has since pondered the deity, B) person X has experienced/witnessed an event(s)/object(s) that has made person X ponder the work behind it, or C) all of the above. It is not important for this discussion to pick one over the other, but merely to reveal the options that drive people to ask the question in the first place. Option A speaks of a person who has heard a name they have never heard before and would like to know more about it. Option B, however, has two distinctive parts. The first part is a person who experiences something in their life which transcends the normality of this physical world that strongly compels them to think of someone or something that is behind the scene (i.e., supernatural). The second part is based on simple observance. This person sees the natural world they live in and can't help but wonder if what they see was created by someone other than mere natural process (i.e., a creator).
With these presuppositions established, we must now return to the question "who is god?" Whatever answers stem from this question will be dominantly (if not entirely) determined by one simple word, "authority". What resource will the person use to be authoritative in answering such a cosmic size question? Will it be nature? People? Scientists? Emotional whim? Or will it be the classic anthropocentric statement: "I think, therefore I am"? This last one takes the biggest class because most people prefer to determine god's existence/non-existence and character by THEIR understanding and THEIR reason alone.
My answer is: The Holy Bible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
