Posts Tagged Theology

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—6. You Gave Them Hand-Me Downs

6. You Gave Them Hand-Me Downs

Today’s response to Marc5Solas on the “Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave the Church” allows me to – once again and more fully – use one of my favorite last names belonging to a past theologian . . . Schleiermacher. SCCCHHHHLLLEEEIIEEERRRRRMMMAAAACCCCHHHHHEEEERRRR! If you’ve been in the SSM for any amount of time, then you know how much I like to say Schleiermacher. Unfortunately, I loathe Schleiermacher’s theology. In Church History as the Enlightenment and Reason began to take the lead in people’s thinking and as the Church suffered from the mortar blasts of Modernism, Friedrich Schleiermacher stepped up in attempt to rescue the Church and Christianity. As Michael Patton and Tim Kimberly of The Credo House have said, when anyone claims to “save the Church” or “rescue Christianity,” turn and run the other way. Jesus is just fine as the Head of the Church, thank you very much. In his response to Modernism, Schleiermacher single-handedly moved the Church away from its historic, corporate creeds and doctrines of the apostles on to an embrace of an immeasurable, personal and internal feeling of dependence upon God. The Credo House gentlemen in their Church History Boot Camp DVD Series suggests an illustrative comparison between Schleiermacher’s claim that we need not get rid of Christianity to the same reason we need not get rid of Christmas Celebrations – don’t you like all of the festivities around Christmas? All the family? All the meals? All the presents? All the decorating? All of the get-togethers? All the children’s choirs? We can’t get rid of Christmas! Christmas makes us feel good. We need Christmas. We need the stories about Jesus; they make Christmas special. You need not believe those doctrines about the virgin birth, God becoming a man, etc. Those are just fables designed to create in us a feeling of dependence upon God. They are not real; they are not historical.

As the Church embraced Schleiermachian theology (and it largely does still today), it headed down the slippery slope of making the feelings within the self the final authority concerning truth. Marc5Solas claims that we have given our kids “hand-me downs” of a particular kind. Namely, we – the adults and the teachers – have followed Schleiermacher’s liberal theology of turning the Christian faith into a purely subjective, independently personal, self-fulfilling, good-feeling seeking religion. Some other comments by The Credo House fellows are helpful here:

You must know Schleiermacher in order to get your neighbors.

With one swift move . . . he disconnected the head from the heart.

Schleiermacher himself said,

You reject the dogmas and propositions of religion. . . . Religion does not need them; it is only human reflection on the content of our religious feelings or affections. . . . Do you say that you cannot accept miracles, revelation, inspiration? You are right; we are children no longer; the time for fairy-tales is past.

Thus, Marc is right when he claims that the Church at large has been attempting to pass on a “feeling” about God to the next generation, hoping that they will “feel” it too. But we are asking ourselves, to what extent have we at Scofield in the Student Ministry (even in the Children’s Ministry) passed on hand-me downs to our kids? Parents? I’m not sure about you. How are you discipling your kids to experience (i.e., to know, to feel, and to submit to) God? Do you immediately jump into a description that is primarily “feeling” oriented? Then, you are a child of Schleiermacher trying to create another child of Schleiermacher :-). Stop it. Feelings are fine in our faith, but only so long as they flow and trickle down from biblical truth. When our children want to know God, we must point them to four sources and trust that their feelings will be shaped appropriately as the Holy Spirit works. I’m not saying ignore or neglect emotions – we are human beings – but emotions must be controlled, just as the thinking and the will must be controlled by the Holy Spirit. So, here are four sources for helping a kid to believe and experience God rightly:

  1. The Holy Scriptures – help them to learn the Scriptures. Help them to discover God in his word. Look to the God-breathed writings of the apostles and the prophets. “Sanctify them in truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).
  2. The gospel of Jesus Christ – of course the gospel is in the Scriptures, but what I mean specifically here is that you can help your kid grow by teaching them the good news about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, his current ministry as our high priest, and his second coming. Is your kid suffering through something, show them what the apostles taught/wrote about the Lord Jesus’ suffering and how God brought good and later highly exulted Jesus.
  3. The Holy Spirit – now by turning your kid to the Holy Spirit, I am not suggesting the warm fuzzies that you sometimes feel on the inside. Don’t reduce the Holy Spirit to the warm fuzzies. He’s a bit more . . . like He is God for heaven’s sake. As I mentioned before, we must practice belief in the ministry of the Holy Spirit as we are told by the apostles in the Holy Scriptures. What does the New Testament teach us about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Church and its members? A lot is the answer. Mainly, the Holy Spirit takes what belongs to Jesus and glorifies him to us and teaches us about him and about life in him. The Holy Spirit has an aim to make you into the image of Christ (Romans 8:26-29). He seeks to gift you for service and God’s glory. He seeks to produce certain fruit in the Christian. There is no such thing as a Holy Spirit-less Christian.
  4. The leadership of your local church (a.k.a. Elders/Pastors) – don’t forget that the Lord Jesus blesses the local church with pastors and teachers and more. Need help discipling your kid in the real Christian faith? Get them to church. Encourage your student’s participation in as many discipleship activities as possible in the local church.

Which brings me to my last question, how is our teaching at Scofield with regard to passing on a substantial, biblical, historical Christian faith to our kids? Well, I may need you to tell me :-). My comments here would be much like my assessment in the previous response. Our content is solid, biblical, in continuity with the orthodox Christian faith of all times. Yet, I think we need to be less aimless in our plan. A little more focused on the beginning point, the finish line, and everything in between necessary to do our best in disciple making.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—7. You Sent Them Out Unarmed

7. You Sent Them Out Unarmed

As mentioned in my response to number 8, I think we do a fairly good job with regard to imparting quality doctrinal teaching and biblical literacy to our students. They study the Bible in our student ministry. They study doctrine in our student ministry. However, I think that Marc (the author) errs a bit too much if he indeed thinks that catechesis is THE solution. Catechesis or some sort of intentional discipleship is necessary to any ministry for growing believers; however, I am discovering more and more that a young person also needs to experience God in the spiritual life. I am not speaking of the Schleiermachian feeling based liberal theology that has birthed this hip nuance youth workers now call Moral Therapeutic Deism. What I am saying is that our young people need both to know the Triune God and to meet with the Triune God. He or she needs both instruction about God and his doings as well as to fellowship with him through spiritual disciplines and the life of the church. Personally, I sense that our student ministry is at the beginning of entering into a kind of discipleship that seeks to direct students to know God well and to experience his presence too. Here, there is an embrace of both catechesis and the spiritual life.

Now, I sense that our student ministry has some weaknesses too that we need to strengthen. First, while we dive deeply into the biblical text and doctrine every semester, I feel that the way in which I go about selecting biblical books to teach, theological themes to explore, or doctrines to learn is a bit aimless. This is what I am saying, I have six years with a student, 7th grade through 12th grade. Instead of a somewhat spontaneous selection of teaching content, I would like to see a discipleship plan or map for the whole six years . . . maybe even a couple of maps. The book Sustainable Youth Ministry speaks about the importance of developing a long-term teaching plan. This has been something that I have not yet implemented in our student ministry, but which I need to implement. I don’t want to totally remove spontaneity from the teaching curriculum of the youth ministry – come on, it IS youth ministry – but a plan or a map would give general direction for the six years of discipleship that we have with any given student. What do you think? We have six years with a student. What should be THE things that we cover, knowing that we will have Communities of Bible Study on Sunday mornings, Sunday Night Connect (our evening meeting), and Summer Small Groups, as well as at least 6 weekend retreats? This would be wonderful for our leadership team to help me think through. Second, we must continue to couple the knowledge of God and the experience of God hand-in-hand as a student ministry. I want our students experiencing God by answered prayer. I want them to fast and deepen their hunger for God. I want them to practice silence so that they listen to God in his word and to listen, as well as test, their own hearts and minds. I want them to practice personal bible study. I want them to be faithful in the sacraments of the church. I want them to participate in evangelism, real evangelism, where you actually share the gospel of Jesus Christ. So at Scofield, we are arming our students, but we can still do better. It isn’t simply a matter of them not being ignorant or biblical illiterate – which are not okay either – but it is also experiencing what we know about God to be true in our lives.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—8. They Get Smart

8. They Get Smart

I don’t agree with Marc here. Our youth group doesn’t dance around difficult questions. We embrace them, discuss them, argue from historic, orthodox Christian teaching, and attempt to humbly admit it when we must embrace mystery and trust God with things. We’ve talked, not directly, but about the ideas in the Epicurus quote. God is both willing and able to prevent evil. Has he not sent his Son to experience the full blow of evil? Does he not seek to unite believers with his Son by the Spirit in the fellowship of suffering? Is he not patiently waiting for all evil persons to repent and turn to him, before he finally and fully judges evil when the cup of his righteous wrath spills over and pours out every last drop? From where did evil come? From pride and disloyalty from within humans? How was it found in humans whom God created? It was enticed by the evil one, the Deceiver and Adversary of God. How was evil found in Satan? From pride and disloyalty from within the angel whom God made? Did God then make Satan evil? No, God tempts no one, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one (James 1:13). What then? God created angels and human as good, and he alone is righteous to determine what is good. In this mystery, it seems that what was good to him was to create beings with a will initially free to be loyal or disloyal, prideful or humble, worshipers or idolaters. However, when the angels and the humans were enticed by their own wills to turn from God; they irrevocably found themselves bound in slavery to evil that leads to death apart from God. Therefore, God must have in eternity past desired for us to know him as the one who is both merciful and judge. For because of evil’s presence, he redeems and judges. The Trinity must have desired to be known through the story of redemption. We talk about such things in our youth group.

However, my concern about our students going forward is not that some professor will make them feel intelligent because we have failed to do so. We give our students a lot to chew on, sometimes purposefully too much for sake of awareness. My concern is that many of our students have not either experienced evil in a life altering way, nor have they yet embraced the gospel to the extent that they will be able to interpret evil and fellowship with Christ in the midst of evil, nor have they yet developed the insight or possibly have not taken their fellowship with the saints deep enough in the local church so as to come to realize that the body of believers with whom they meet every week knows the grief of evil well, many of whom continue to rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, and persist in prayer. Despite our best efforts, some teens continue to perceive the local church as some kind of social club, which it is not, rather than a corporate fellowship with Christ and with one another as worshipers through both days of trouble and days of celebration. You can know about evil and all the philosophical debates, and yada, yada, but your real theology shows up when you experience evil.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Quoting Bonhoeffer #7

Metaxas quotes a friend and classmate of Bonhoeffer’s, Helmuth Goes, who “recalled feeling a ‘secret enthusiasm’ for Bonhoeffer’s ‘free, critical, and independent’ theological thinking”:

What really impressed me was not just the face that he surpassed almost all of us in theological knowledge and capacity; but what passionately attracted me to Bonhoeffer was the perception that here was a man who did not only learn and gather in the verba and scripta of some master, but one who thought independently and already knew what he wanted and wanted what he knew. I had the experience (for me it was something alarming and magnificently new!) of hearing a young fair-haired student contradict the revered historian, his Excellency von Harnack answered, but the student contradicted again and again [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 59].

Later Metaxas writes,

Besides Harnack, three other Berlin professors had decided influence on Bonhoeffer. They were Karl Holl, who was perhaps the greatest Luther scholar of that generation; Reinhold Seeberg, who specialized in systematic theology, and under whom Bonhoeffer wrote his doctoral thesis; and Adolf Deissman, who was Bonhoeffer’s introduction to the ecumenical movement, which would play such an important role in his life and provide the means by which he became involved in the conspiracy against Hitler. But there was another theologian who had a greater influence on Bonhoeffer than any of these, and whom he would revere and respect as much as anyone in his lifetime, who would even become a mentor and a friend. This was Karl Barth of Göttingen [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 60].

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Election 2012: Can the Christian Vote This Year?

November is coming. As I begin to consider participating in my fourth presidential election, I find myself in a bit of a conundrum. Let me begin by expressing the mood of this post just in case you don’t intuitively catch it through the text. I come to this as an average Christian guy simply praying for thoughtfulness about and loyalty to the gospel of Jesus Christ as I consider candidates and issues in our current political and social context. I am a theologian by training and a pastor by vocation, not a political analyst, economist, or any other similar thing. I have traditionally made political decisions from a politically conservative position; that is, I am in favor of smaller government in America’s democratic context; I lean more toward the effectiveness of conservative economic principles; and I view health care as a commodity, not as an entitled right (IMO, it has to be paid for somehow; therefore, health care is something that should be available to working people, and of course compassionate and wise consideration should be given to the poor and disabled, but without the present sense of entitlement.) I have voted for a Republican in every previous election since 2000. There . . . now you know my political history . . . no secrets.

But this election is different. It is unlike any other I have faced. I am an evangelical Christian, which means (among other things) that I believe in (1) the Triune God of the Bible, (2) the orthodox Christian doctrine on the second Person of the Trinity—Jesus Christ, (3) the depravity of humanity (see Luther’s The Bondage of the Will), and (4) salvation for humanity by grace through faith in the faithful work of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:1–22). I agree with the Christian Church, which has always historically taken the position that abortion of a child is wrong (see Didache 2:2; Barnabas 19:5; as well all Scripture passages condemning child sacrifice and those in which we see Jesus’ great love for children).

On this topic, I do honestly wonder about certain, rare ethical situations caused by today’s medical and technological advancements. A brief story here, when my wife went into premature labor at 20 weeks with our twins, Hadlee and Jaxon, I was nearly faced with a decision that humbled my conservative political views on this issue a bit and caused me to diligently consider what Scripture had to say to me as a husband and a father. Hadlee was born first, and she lived only a few minutes. There was a chance that Jaxon could survive; however, this came with some risk. I remember very vividly the doctor pulling me aside and saying to me that the pregnancy had been compromised which put both Aimee and Jaxon at risk. He advised me that should the situation require such a decision, that I/we would need to be prepared to choose whose life we would seek to protect. I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe where I found myself . . . never in a million years would I have thought that I would have to make such a decision. In order to prepare, I first spent time in a long season of prayer. Then, I searched the Scripture for guidance about my responsibilities to God as both a husband and a father. After having done this, I felt sure of a conviction that my relationship to my wife took precedence over every other earthly relationship according to Scripture. I communicated to Aimee that should a decision need to be made, that I felt sure that the right thing to do was to protect her life. However, such a decision did not have to be made; little Jaxon came on his own . . . too early and his life expired after only a few minutes.

Continuing on, I am also in agreement with the historic position of the Christian Church on marriage. For the Church, the reason marriage must be between a man and a woman is a theological reason. God created a male and a female to be joined in a one flesh covenant because it was decided long before creation that such a human relationship would image what God the Son would do for his Bride, the Church (see Ephesians 5:32).

So what’s my dilemma? We have two candidates this election — Mr. Romney and current President Barack Obama — neither of whom I can endorse wholeheartedly as a Christian. Mitt Romney, as has been well publicized, is a faithful member and leader in the Mormon LDS Church. His election (really even his nomination and campaigning) has and will no doubt bring Mormonism into the public view—for the good of it or for the bad of it is yet to be seen . . . more on this later. My problem with this is that Mormonism is heretical and deceptively so. If you were to read the LDS Beliefs, you would most likely not see anything too different from what you may expect from your Christian church’s doctrinal statement, but this is where you would be terribly wrong. Little words full of meaning are left out (e.g., “eternal” in Article 1 of the 13 is only associated with the Father, not with the Son, nor the Spirit—this is intentional by the LDS, which does not believe in the eternal existence of the Son and the Spirit but only the Father). Further, unorthodox doctrines are employed (e.g., see Articles 2, 3–4, 8, and 10). Of the four orthodox Christian doctrines that I mentioned above, the LDS rejects all four, and in so doing, they are guilty of preaching “another gospel” about which Paul has some very strong words (see Galatians 1:8–9). So, how does this relate to politics for me as a thinking Christian. Well, can I vote for a candidate whose religious views may lead to confusing Americans about orthodox Christian theology and therefore allow for a false gospel to be popularized? And don’t compare previous Roman Catholic presidents with a potential Mormon president please—that is not an accurate parallel. I would feel more comfortable voting for a man of no religion than a man advancing a false and confusing gospel.

Then, there is the incumbent, President Barack Obama. I cannot endorse wholeheartedly his position on abortion, which in some sense seems compassionate toward women, but is too free so as to neglect the humanity and life of the unborn:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs (taken from http://www.barackobama.com/women).

Further, I cannot—in my understanding of the marriage covenant represented in Scripture as well as Scripture’s clear teaching that all humans since the fall have perverted human sexuality—endorse his position on same-sex marriage:

So, what am I to do? This is the evangelical Christian dilemma in 2012—to ignore the dilemma is not thoughtful nor good—there is a dilemma. Now, I could just drink the “Republican Kool-aid” as a traditional Republican and not think too deeply about these things, but I can’t. Or, I could side with the more progressive and trendy democratic party (clearly more trendy than the Republicans) because there is a mood of progress about them, but I can’t do this either. The whole “lesser of two evils” is not a justifiable Christian ethic—evil is always evil. I do support small government, so maybe that should be my guiding light to the Romney camp, but can I do this at the expense of the clarity of the gospel? And let’s be honest—do either parties really believe in small government today?

I feel like a sheep being led to the slaughter-house. There’s no good way to go. Even if I decide not to vote—I have committed the gravest sin in America—to not exercise my right in the democracy. In many other places and in the days of monarchs and emperors, I wouldn’t have had to worry about this dilemma. The people in power would be in power—regardless of my opinion—until they just weren’t in power anymore. I would have had no other choice but to seek God, the truly Sovereign King, who gives a hearing at his throne of grace to humble sinners concerned for his/her nation and its leaders. Yet to an American, is praying really doing something? Let me ask this, is praying doing enough? I and you probably feel that it is not—that we must cast our vote and do our part. I don’t know about you brothers and sisters, but I don’t see our part making much of a difference in our country no matter who wins every four years in November.

The real problem here is that we have forgotten how to depend on God as our Sovereign. We Americans have a history being a people who always have to “do something” (and no I am not speaking about hard work here) and then feel like we have fixed things (or at least tried) by our participation in the political process. But where do we Christians go when we are presented with a context like the one we are now facing? Do you decide to contribute to a decision that potentially does harm in the advance of the gospel? Do you vote for a candidate who holds moral positions that violate your conscience? What do we do?

It is time, brothers and sisters, for us to return to God. When is the last time you met with God about the advance of the gospel in our nation? When is the last time you met with God about the moral bankruptcy of our people? The road to being a good American citizen begins with a heart that hungers and thirsts after the things in the heart of God. Consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I recently watched a documentary on Bonhoeffer and am now reading a biography about him. Bonhoeffer was a German, theologian, and pastor in the days of World War II and Nazi Germany. In his day, it was very clear that the church had ceased to be a group of people who could think critically about ideologies. This is why most of the church gave the blessing of God upon Adolf Hitler. Tell me Christian brother or sister, to what ideology are you most loyal? Is it to the Republican idea? Is it to the Democratic idea? I hope that your first and foremost loyalty is to Jesus Christ, which does not lead one to become inactive in the affairs of his/her nation (as Bonhoeffer clearly illustrates by his life); however, thinking through the gospel implications of things allows a citizen to act in a godly way in the midst of godless nations. You see, the German church was too late in its attempt to call Christians to think critically and biblically about politics. What about us? What about the American church?

For everything made evident is light, and for this reason it says:
“Awake, O sleeper!
Rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you!”
Therefore be very careful how you live—not as unwise but as wise, taking advantage of every opportunity, because the days are evil. For this reason do not be foolish, but be wise by understanding what the Lord’s will is (Ephesians 5:14–17).

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

ETS Review

The following are summaries from the lectures I attended at the Evangelical Theological Society’s 2009 Annual Conference. I hope to have my SBL Review up shortly.

Lorne Robert Zelyck

University of Cambridge

Mixing the Gospels?: Synoptic/John Parallels in Gospel of Thomas

Do the non-canonical gospels show literary dependence upon the Fourth Gospel? Zelyck devised a grading system in order to rank dependency: 1) Clear Dependence, 2) Probable Dependence, 3) Plausible Dependence, and 4) Possible Dependence. Further, the twelve passages (ie, Sayings) examined by Zelyck in the Gospel of Thomas had parallels not only in John but also in the Synoptics. Of the twelve passages, he concluded that two possess Plausible Dependence on the Fourth Gospel and ten possess Possible Dependence. His grading is based on his examination of verbal and conceptual overlaps and perhaps the non-gnostifying tendency of the Gospel of Thomas where it’s “dependent” on John. Zelyck concluded that the theory of Thomas and Johannine communities in conflict lacks evidence and that Thomas is dependent upon four gospels and a Gnostic source that utilized Johannine language.

Aaron O’Kelley

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: Ecclesiology or Soteriology?

[For most of the lecture, I felt like I was hearing a reading report on Piper’s book on justification. When I asked him how he thought the OT’s understanding of righteousness contributed to this conversation, he replied that he wasn’t familiar with the OT usage but that he felt that he understood Paul pretty well.] The lecture is a response to the New Perspective movement. O’Kelley spent most of his time nuancing how “righteousness” and “works of the law” should be understood in Paul before making the final conclusion that justification certainly had communal implications for Jew-Gentile congregations, but the justification of the sinner should be primary and precede dialogue about the effects of justification on Jew-Gentile relations.

Jarvis J. Williams

Campbellsville University

Martyr Theology in Hellenistic Judaism and Paul’s Conception of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3:21-26

Williams’ thesis was stated clearly, “the Martyr Theology of Hellenistic Judaism, which is most prevalent in 4 Maccabees and which arose during the Hellenistic crisis under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, shaped Paul’s conception of Jesus’ death in Romans 3:21-26 and that Martyr Theology provided Paul with the fundamental (not the only) concepts that he needed to present Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice and as a saving event in Romans 3:21-26 to his Hellenistic Jewish and Gentile audience.” Williams does not argue for literary dependence, but rather the Martyr Theology shaped Paul’s thinking when he wrote to the Romans.

Brian J. Wright

Dallas Theological Seminary

Greek Syntax as a Criterion of Authenticity: The Aorist Third-Person Negated Imperative

Wright offered several convincing proofs that the NT Greek syntactical construction of the negated Aorist Third-Person Imperative should be considered the ipsissima verba of the historical Jesus. This construction is found eight times and only in the Gospel of Matthew as sayings of Jesus. Wright’s hope is not only that this particular construction be considered as a viable criterion for authenticity, but moreover he desires Greek syntax to move into a more prominent role in the scholarly dialogue concerning authenticity.

Luther Chatla

Dallas Theological Seminary

Davidic Covenant and Hittite Treaties: An Appraisal of the Covenant Scholarship from Mendenhall to Johnston and Advancement

Chatla reviewed more than a century of covenant scholarship and its movement. He offers the advancement that the (Davidic) covenant should be understood in a progressive sense with a two-fold nature and format: 1) the good will section of the grant treaty and 2) the follow-up section of the grant treaty. With this, Chatla builds on the scholarship of the past by suggesting a unified sense and conditional nature of OT covenants.

Michael Sawilowsky

Durham University

James 2 and the Jesus Tradition of Matthew 25:31-46

Sawilowsky dismisses claims that James lacks any emphasis on Christology; rather, he suggests we find an ethical or social Christology with a very real presence in James 2. James Christology is closely paralleled with the Jesus of Matthew 25:31-46. Sawilowsky argues for parallels between Jesus as glorious and Jesus as poor and that those who assist the poor (ie, a faith that works) will inherit the kingdom. Beyond these conceptual parallels, Sawilowsky was also persuaded by the intertextual connection of verbal parallels in the two passages.

Participants: Stanley E. Porter (Moderator), Jonathan Watt, Randall Buth, Rodney Decker, Daniel B. Wallace (Panelists)

Institutions In Order: McMaster Divinity College, Geneva College, Biblical Language Center, Baptist Bible Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary

Panel Discussion: Toward a Consensus on the Nature of New Testament Greek

Prior to the panel discussion, Watt, Buth and Decker presented papers dealing with the implications of societal multilingualism and a writer’s idiolect upon the exegesis of the New Testament. The panel discussion began with Porter as Moderator and Wallace’s responses to each of the papers. Regarding multilingualism, there was dialogue concerning 1) a need to grade the importance or familiarity of the possible languages used in the NT era among the writers and recipients of the NT Scripture, 2) an evaluation of the reasoning of the author when utilizing multiple languages in his writings (eg, strength in both languages or weakness forcing a switch?), 3) the use of the δικ- word group, 4) Mark’s idiolect: his use of καὶ εὐθύς and the historical present, 5) the minimal employment of paraphrastic constructions, and 6) ramifications for textual criticism in light of idiolect studies (eg, do the idiolectic tendencies of Mark in 1:1-16:8 differ from those in the variant ending 16:9-20?).

Andrew Pitts

McMaster Divinity College

The Scribal Infrastructure of Early Christianity

Pitts laid the necessary ground work that provided a context for the subsequent speakers in the New Testament Canon, Textual Criticism, and Apocryphal Literature section. The section theme was The Text of the Gospels in the Second and Third Centuries. Pitts did a thorough job describing the scribal practices, writing materials, and the advancement from the scroll or bookroll to the codex (papyrus). Knowledge concerning the physical aspects of the manuscripts are essential in dating early Christian texts.

Daniel B. Wallace

Dallas Theological Seminary

The Text of the Gospels in the Papyri

Wallace presented viable evidence of the presence of the Gospels among the ii and iii century papyri. 43% of the NT has attestation in the ii century including 4% of Matthew, 71% of Luke and 94% of John. Third century witnesses attests to 57% of the NT including 18% of Matthew, 22% of Mark, c. 72% of Luke and 97% of John. In all, sixty-two pre-fourth century gospel manuscripts are extant. Wallace offered six implications; one of which offers explanations for the minimal attestation to Mark in the ii century: 1) perhaps Mark was initially “cannibalized” or “swallowed up” by Matthew and Luke due to a desire for a common, singular gospel until the four-gospel advocates became prominent; 2) perhaps Mark’s Gospel “played second fiddle” because his Greek was not as polished; or 3) perhaps the short ending of Mark (at 16:8) made some uncomfortable (thus an indirect attestation to its authenticity). Lastly, Wallace projected that since Matthew and Mark were not mere copyists, but authors with their own perspectives who employed Mark as a source, then we should be able to isolate, to a degree, the content of Matthew and Luke’s copy(ies) of Mark so that some of the ii and iii century witnesses of Matthew and Luke are also ii and iii century witnesses of their sources (viz, Mark).

William F. Warren

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

The Text of the Gospels in the Apostolic Fathers

Warren interacted with statistical evidence accumulated from research performed by Oxford.[1] However, the research was dated. Warren dealt primarily with the text of Matthew 6:9-13 and Didache 8:2. He concluded that the Didachist most likely did not have a copy of Matthew’s Gospel but rather the writer shared in a similar oral or written tradition. Interaction with the INFER search in Accordance Bible Software and an examination of the resulting evidence (eg, syntactical and conceptual parallels) in all of the AF would have been helpful.

Stanley E. Porter

McMaster Divinity College

The Text of the Gospels in Apocryphal Greek Gospel Papyri

I have very few notes on Porter’s discussion and don’t remember much. I do remember thinking back to the first session I attended (my first entry) regarding the Gospel of Thomas and hoping that Porter would deal more specifically with dependency, but he didn’t. He did mention the Fayyum or Rainer Fragment, which he claimed contained a portion of Mark and a portion of Matthew joined by a genitive absolute. The fragment does not contain any writing on the backside, which was interesting to me – is it an amulet; was it used for liturgy, if not part an amulet, could it have been part of a scroll, or was it part of an altogether different (non-canonical) gospel?


[1] I can’t recall the exact resource, and my notes are lacking at this point.

, , , , , ,

2 Comments