Category Archives: Biblical Theology

Why Logic Sometimes Conflicts with Scripture: Deity of Christ as a Test Case

20 Thursday Dec 2012

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Christology, Discipleship, Election, Eschatology, Evangelism, Gospel, Shepherding, Systematic Theology

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Logic is the beautiful and artistic arrangement of propositions, statements, or examples to construct an argument. The more I study principles of logic, organization of logic, and flaws of logical fallacies, everyone everywhere constantly forms logical arguments. It is interesting, and I think an argument can be made, that some aspects of Scripture don’t follow logical rules. One such example will embody this post. However, instead of assuming the Bible contains logical fallacies that can be easily defeated, I’ve coined a term within my own communities to attempt to solve this illogical tension within some principles in Scripture. I call it “biblical logic”; that is, though it does not follow the set rules of logic per se, it presents its own argument while affirming the inability to be inconsistent. Therefore, a presupposition of scriptural coherence prohibits me from seeing competing discrepancies and therefore presents a different set of logical hurdles to formulate.

Take for example the deity of Christ. I’ve encountered this within my evangelistic encounters where the recipient refuses to believe in the complete deity of Christ because they see some deficiency in Christ. They, typically without any philosophical or logical training (and therefore, I believe, proves my idea that people formulate logic unknowingly) try to disprove the gospel using logical means of a syllogism. A syllogism is composed of three elements: Major Premise, Minor Premise, and Concluding Thought. They use Matthew 24:36 in order to diminish the deity of Christ, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.” They draw out Christ’s inability to know all things and consequently reveals a bit of presuppositions on their end. Their syllogism typically follows:

Continue reading »

Why Critical Inquiry Should Be Part of the Christian Life

21 Sunday Oct 2012

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Postmodernism, Shepherding, Teaching, Theodicy, Worldview

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Asking questions have plagued our youth to an extent that they are scolded for attempting to think “outside” the established norm. Some who offer critical thinking may be seem divisive. Regardless, questions that test the established norm are not necessarily favored by the hierarchy of leadership. I would offer the hypothesis that critical questions and the depth of those questions may indicate a spirit of teachability, spiritual maturity, and a great desire for knowledge. The converse of my hypothesis, I would also affirm: a lack of questions or attempting to squelch the inquisitor may be a sign of spiritual immaturity or a demonstration of lacking knowledge.

I wish I could take credit of this initial thought, but a mentor of mine developed the seedbed of this thinking. If you pursue the idea of “question” from a biblical theology perspective, the continuity of the testaments offer an interesting perspective. The original question in Scripture could undo my entire thesis. The serpent has the first question, attempting to break the established norm in Gen 3. This single question sought to discredit the authority of God’s instruction. But after living in a fallen-world, the idea of “question” breeds discernment.
Continue reading »

On Theologizing 2 (organic continuity)

24 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by in Biblical Theology, Gospel, Systematic Theology

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

The intro to this series may be found here.

In a recent journal article, Kaiser explores whether the object of faith in the OT is the same as in the NT.[1] This query is usually, as it is in Kaiser’s article, discussed along the lines of Dispensational Theology (DT) vs Covenant Theology (CT). There is not really any debate as to whether salvation is by grace through faith, but rather what the object of saving faith was in the OT. That Jesus is set forth as the object of saving faith in the NT is beyond dispute. However, Dispensationslists have often denied that Jesus is the object of saving faith in the OT. Instead, it is proffered that faith in God in general, and derivatively faith in whatever he promised at the time, is in fact the object of saving faith which OT saints possessed.

Kaiser cites Ryrie as representative of the common DT position, ”The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age [however,] is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”[2] Kaiser then cites the Westminster Confession (Chapter VII, section 3) as representative of the common CT position,[3]

Man by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

In his article, Kaiser goes on to discuss the implications of some who have gone beyond Ryrie and adopt an inclusivist approach: whereby it is argued that anyone who comes to believe in monotheism is basically exercising the faith of Abraham and the rest of the OT saints. Our interest here, however, is the continuity/discontinuity contrast between CT and DT. It should be pointed out that Kaiser’s antithesis appears to only take into account classical and revised DT. A progressive dispensationalist position would not necessarily understand the content of faith as changing over the various dispensations. As such, Kaiser’s antithesis is a false one in terms of CT vs DT.
Continue reading »