Wired4Truth » Jesus

On Being Black and Reformed (3): Why Don’t We “Do Theology?” (Part 1)

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:45:40 +0000

Theology has fallen on bad times. In one sense, it always has. The image of the guy with an insanely long beard, surrounded by books, looking like my guy here…

…is just not appealing to us. It’s too cerebral, too based on the brain, too intellectual. “Christianity is not intellectual, it’s faith, the heart, the soul” – according to a preacher friend of my dad’s. That attitude is pervasive in evangelical Christianity in general, but I seem to encounter it a lot in black churches.

For instance, I recently went with my Dad to go and visit a church. Now, whenever I go somewhere with Dad and people see this burly (well, kinda) guy right next to him, they usually think I’m one of his elders and so my Dad will point out that I’m actually his son. (I look more like Mum than Dad, so folks don’t make the connection that quickly). After the service, the pastor of the church, who used to pastor in the same denomination as my Dad when we lived in Germany, came and sat with Dad and myself and asked me what I was studying. Before I could even muster up an answer, my Dad mentioned what my degree is in and then (incorrectly) said I was also studying theology. Aside from the fact I was mildly annoyed – I am 20 and rather capable of answering direct questions, the pastor’s response was telling. The pastor immediately said, “Why?”, followed by a comment to my dad about how theologically-minded people are always the first to criticise his ministry. I said nothing – after all, I’m smart enough not to challenge someone in their own house, especially when I didn’t particularly want to be there. I kindly corrected my dad in the car home, reminding him that I don’t formally study theology and that he really didn’t need to mention that in the first place.

To be honest, the experience of a mild telling-off for no real reason had gotten to me, but it got me thinking. Why is it that the pastor in question, my dad (himself a pastor of many years’ experience), other pastors I’ve had the opportunity to come in contact with and loads of “lay people” have this aversion for the theological? What is it about theology makes Christians - and especially black Christians, I would argue – so frightened of doctrine?

In his fantastic work Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Dr R.C. Sproul lists ten reasons why Christians in general tend to have an aversion to doctrine and theology – ten reasons I find all too easily in much of the black church as I get to see it.

1. The “Childlike Faith” Error

Time would fail me to deal with just how prevalent this idea is. Basically it goes a little like this: in places like Mark 10:15, Jesus says: “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Receiving the kingdom of God like a child is then taken to mean that like children don’t have all the knowledge in the world but just believe, so we should adopt that kind of attitude.

Now my gripe isn’t so much with Mark 10:15 – Scripture is Scripture. My gripe is with a reading of this text which equates to childish, not childlike faith. Dr Sproul explains:

There is a vast difference, however, between a childlike faith and a childish faith, though the two are often confused. A childish faith balks at learning the things of God in depth. It refuses the meat of the gospel while clinging to a diet of milk. For this, the childish Christian receives an admonition:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

A refusal to go deeper into the name of maintaining a misguided innocence is childish. In fact the Bible expressly commands us to grow up in terms of understanding:

[14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

(Ephesians 4:14 ESV)

[20] Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.

(1 Corinthians 14:20 ESV)

Childlike faith is childlike in its dependence and trust, not in its inability to understand. The Bible calls us paradoxically to be mature yet childlike. It is foolish to pick one and reject the other.

2. Fear of Theological Skepticism

Let’s face facts – there are many unbelieving people with an interest with theology. As I write, I’m reminded of the name of Leslie Weatherhead. Weatherhead, a Methodist, was pastor of City Temple, here in the city of London. To say he was a theological liberal would be something of an understatement. For instance, here is his take and you can read his words for yourself if you don’t believe I’m telling the truth:

The doctrine of Jesus’s “Virgin Birth” was not part of the missionary message of the early Church. As far as we know, Jesus did not mention it to His apostles. Certainly, Mark, Peter, Paul and John show no knowledge of such a miracle. And if it really had been a “Divine Conception”, surely Mary would have told her Son? If she had, then He and His apostles would undoubtedly have regarded it as highly significant, and included it in their teachings.

However, in St. Matthew’s Gospel we read that Joseph seemed shocked at Mary’s pregnancy and was “minded to put her away privily”, “not willing to make her a public example” [chapter 1, verses 18-19]. References elsewhere to his being “a righteous man” rule out premarital intimacy. Besides, if the child were his, Jewish law would have demanded his care for Mary and her unborn child. He would not have been allowed to “put her away”. Indeed, it would not have entered his head to do so.

Whence then came Mary’s pregnancy? Can we suppose that some village rascal was responsible for her condition? I hold that the beauty of the peerless story rules this out. Read again the first chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel and imagine a village maiden of sixteen or so, after some mystical experience beyond the power of any pen to describe, saying quietly, “Behold the slave-girl of the Lord; be it unto me according to Thy word!” [Luke 1, verse 38].

One explanation of Mary’s pregnancy has been put forward by Mr. C. A. Wainwright of Oxford. First, he refers to the “sacred marriage” ceremony which was an ancient and widespread custom in the Near and Middle East (including Egypt and India). The high priest played the part of a divine messenger. He was “married” to a virgin with whom he cohabited. The offspring of such a union was regarded as a son of god, or a divine personage.

Now Zacharias was the priest on duty in the temple at the relevant time. He “executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course” (Luke 1, verse 8). We are told that, though old, Zacharias was not impotent, for he made his wife Elisabeth pregnant though she was past the normal time of child-bearing. John the Baptist was their son.

We are also told that after Mary’s visitation from the angel who told her she was to bear Jesus, Mary replied: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Mary was then reassured: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God” [Luke 1, verse 35].

We are then told that Mary entered the house of Zacharias [Luke 1, verses 39-40], stayed there three months, and then returned to her own house [Luke 1, verse 56].

In a “sacred marriage” of the sort described by Mr Wainwright, a stay of three months was required in the house of the priest, or in the sacred precincts, to make sure that pregnancy was established*. This would explain why Mary stayed in the home of Zacharias for that length of time before returning to her own home. Indeed, what an otherwise strange reaction to Gabriel’s message was her hurried journey into Zacharias’s house! “Mary arose, and went with haste and entered the house of Zacharias” [Luke 1, verse 39].

Now here’s a man saying that the Virgin Birth was more a lurid tale of an older man sleeping with a younger girl in some weird kind of spiritual-sexual rite. But people will read stuff like that (and sadly, there is a lot of it) and say, “See, that’s where theology will take you. I’d rather just believe it and leave it at that.”

The problem is unbelief in the name of God isn’t all that new. In the days of the New Testament, there were a group of men called the Sadducees. The Sadducees were part of the ruling religious class of the day and they had some peculiar views. They denied any sort of resurrection, didn’t believe in the afterlife or in much of the supernatural. As you can imagine, they just loved Jesus and the Apostles. No, they opposed his message with everything they had – yet they felt themselves to be true to the Law of Moses. Why expect times to change? Didn’t Paul says that the risk of believing another Jesus was always a threat (Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Cor 11:4)? The existence of the counterfeit and false doesn’t rule out the existence of the genuine and authentic. The answer to theological unbelief is not the rejection of theology – it’s the rejection of unbelief! As Christians, we are a believing people – either we believe that God has spoken and we need to listen (which is the natural orientation of Biblical Christianity) or we believe that we have spoken and God needs to listen (every other form of “Christianity”).

Rejecting theology because of aberrant forms of it is like refusing to watch an Arsenal game because Spurs are useless. (UK readers: don’t argue – just smile and accept it.) In all seriousness, it’s more akin to rejecting the use of money because counterfeits are circulating. It’s like refusing to drive because they are drunk drivers or refusing to eat because some folks cannot cook. It sounds absurd, I agree, but that is what we do if we shun all theology because of the “bad apples”.

To be continued…

On Being Black and Reformed (1): Do I Have to Choose?: An Introductory Word As you may gather when you read this blog, I...
On Being Black and Reformed (2): Is There Such a Thing as the ‘Black Church’? One of the integral issues relating to the issue of...
“If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!) As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On Being Black and Reformed (1): Do I Have to Choose?: An Introductory Word

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:19:00 +0000

As you may gather when you read this blog, I am unashamedly Reformed in my theology. I fully affirm the teaching of the Second London Baptist Confession, commonly called the 1689 Baptist Confession and its five main areas of assent with classic Christian theology (you can listen to Greg Nichols’ fine lecture on this subject, What is a Reformed Baptist?). I am also an “umpteenth generation Ghanaian” as I’m fond of saying. In fact, my father is fond of saying that on both sides of my family are as Ghanaian as the cocoa beans that grow in the forest. As annoying as Africans can be, and anyone who has dealt with Africans knows there are a special bunch, I fully embrace my African heritage as a big part of who I am.

Often I get asked how does being black and being Reformed work out. After all, the world I grew up was dominated by the theological superstructure of Pentecostalism. Until I was 18, I knew personally of two types of African Christian – Pentecostal and Catholic. There was a Baptist church behind my house – but they were (and are still) for all intents, Pentecostal. When I came under the teaching of Reformed theology, I knew I’d encountered a worldview shift of epic proportions. I also knew that a lot of reformed teaching clashed not just because of the theology I grew up with, but also because of things considered fundamental to being a ‘black Christian’. In short, I had – or thought I had – to make a choice: either I was going down the Reformed road or going down the ‘black’ road?

Fast forward the next few years to today and I am not so convinced I needed to choose. I am convinced however that there are some issues that need to be addressed. This series isn’t 100% planned out in my mind, but here are some of the issues I want to hit:

Is there such a thing as the black church?
Does it need reforming?
Does being reformed entail an identity change?
Do I need to be ‘white’ to be reformed?
Is there a black theology?

How long will this series be? As long as it takes, really. But if you’re not interested, I can least give you my major premise upfront: it is entirely possible to be black, in all of its cultural expression insofar as it is godly, and be robustly Reformed. I’d go so far as to say the two were made for each other. Are you nuts? Nope, and I’ll prove it. Hope you can join me.

“If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!) As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching...
Why the Reformation Still Matters This post was written late last night in commemoration of...
Elijah, Mount Horeb and The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary California and author...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!)

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:30:32 +0000

As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching regarding the three use of the laws.

The Reformer Reader explains what the three uses are:

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis). They are:

1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis). That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).

2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus). That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves. In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320). This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.

3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus). That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works. It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good” (p. 321). This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

That glorious truth has fallen on hard times. Under the guise of “gospel-centredness”, the place of God’s law has come under attack. Thankfully, this vital truth is not entirely lost in our day. In a previous post, I shared my happiness at the news that Ernest Kevan’s The Grace of Law is back in print which deals with the classic Puritan and Reformed take on the place of the Law. Like I said then, I say now: every believer needs to read and internalize the message of that book.

Thankfully, many preachers still uphold the teaching of the abiding moral law for believers today. One such preacher is Pastor Mark Chanski, minister of Trinity Baptist Church, Montville, New Jersey in this teaching entitled A Rule of Life for the Believer: If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments. Please take an hour, grab your Bible (or get your app on) and follow along as Pastor Chanski guides us through this vital issue (you can also download this message in MP3 for later listening at this link):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Worship in the Melting Pot Part 1 – Dr Peter Masters The first of a three-part series by my own pastor,...
This is One Conversation I Would Love to Sit In On Dr R.C. Sproul interviews Dr. D.A. Carson on Biblical exegesis:...
Lighten Up!: How the Gospel Frees Us from Taking the World Too Seriously For years, I’ve taken myself too seriously. I’m the oldest...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Preaching an Untruncated Gospel

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:03:30 +0000

If you’re familiar with the reformed blogosphere, you’ll no doubt be familiar with the big discussions that have happened in recent months regarding the relationship between justification and sanctification. As I read the material and hear the discussions, I will admit that I’ve not been at ease with the conclusions reached. Thankfully, I am not alone in this, and in the video below, the friends at Reformed Forum have posted a video by one of their team on this. Enjoy:

Lighten Up!: How the Gospel Frees Us from Taking the World Too Seriously For years, I’ve taken myself too seriously. I’m the oldest...
Could Calvin Get a Job in 2011?: Why Being Rigorously Biblical (on the whole) Isn’t Popular I begin this piece with a question. Could John Calvin,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“Exercising Gifts” – Dr. Peter Masters

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:45:25 +0000

The Metropolitan Tabernacle

I’m honoured to be a member at the Metropolitan Tabernacle here in London, where Dr. Peter Masters serves as Minister. This past Wednesday, Dr. Masters taught from 1 Tim 4:13-14 in our midweek Bible study on the subject of Exercising Gifts. Particularly edifying was the defense of cessationism (the Biblical teaching that the sign gifts have ceased in operation for today). You can listen to the message at the link below:

Go get Adobe Flash Player!

Worship in the Melting Pot Part 2 – Dr Peter Masters Once again, it’s a great joy to present my pastor,...
Worship in the Melting Pot Part 1 – Dr Peter Masters The first of a three-part series by my own pastor,...
The Call to a Word-Centred Spirituality (1 Peter 1:22-2:3) Part 1 The following is the first of a three-part expansion of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Of Preachers, Planes and Prosperity

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Mon, 23 May 2011 16:29:52 +0000

What you’re about to read has its genesis in a Forbes.com blog post I read chronicling how in a nation where 60% of the population are below the poverty line, some seem to be bucking the trend and making it big – big enough to own their private jets. Now buying your jet definitely doesn’t disturb me – I’d quibble with whether you are being a good steward – but I wouldn’t be incensed about it.

Nice jet...

What does bother me is that named in the article are three “ministers of the Gospel” who now own their own private jets. In the case of one preacher, he now is the “proud” owner of four individual jets – yes, count ‘em – FOUR. Now I’m disturbed – see, I’m of the opinion that a preacher should live a modest life, one that no-one should be able to make comments of a derogatory kind about. But that’s my opinion – and so I decided to get some public opinion in the form of a poll here on the website. I simply asked whether it was OK for a preacher to own multiple jets and offered three different answers: Yes, No and Depends. It was a close call – with none for the Yes, seven for the No and six for Depends.

As you may deduce, I’m firmly in the No camp - here’s why. I don’t object to their owning a jet – but I do object to the reasoning offered for why they can have one. It’s grounded in what I consider to be one of the most dangerous theological systems ever spawned in the history of man – the prosperity gospel. Three preachers are cited in the article but allow me to focus on just one: Bishop David Oyedepo, founder and overseer of Winners Chapel International. Dr Oyedepo is unashamedly an adherent of the prosperity gospel – you can listen to his messages online and they have titles as:

Walking in Divine Favour
Supernatural Wisdom
Gateway to Financial Fortune
Unveiling the Highway to Your Blessing

Need I really comment on what is the dominant focus of his ministry?

When you have it firmly lodged in your head that financial prosperity isn’t only good but that it is a divine, irrevocable right, the next logical thing is that God wants to enjoy that financial prosperity – so what’s a few planes when God says that I am entitled to it?

You see, this is primarily a theological issue, not an economic or ethical one, although it has economic and ethical implications. Ultimately, this stems from what one believes about God – and not just a dude with a plane.Ultimately, he is making claims on God’s behalf and that concerns me, especially when the claims are bogus! Further, a message is preached which detracts from the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ – it essentially says Jesus is good, not because He is my Saviour and He does all things well, but because He gives me what I want when I ask. Married folks, imagine if your spouse was like that. Folks in serious relationships, imagine if your partner saw you this way. Call it a journalist’s hunch but I can guess you’d feel a weird mix of anger, frustration and grief – and yet vast portions of the Christian church have caved into treating God like that.

Forbes.com would have nothing to write about if the church did its job and said, “NO!!! We will not sit around and tolerate our faith being pimped like this! We will not let our precious Saviour be auctioned off like a piece of meat to the highest bidder!” So…what do I think of preachers, planes or prosperity?

1 Tim 6:6 NIV But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Lighten Up!: How the Gospel Frees Us from Taking the World Too Seriously For years, I’ve taken myself too seriously. I’m the oldest...
The Mission In Our Own Backyard: The Forgotten Story of Home Missions I am aware that in our present age to say...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Lighten Up!: How the Gospel Frees Us from Taking the World Too Seriously

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Fri, 13 May 2011 17:57:39 +0000

For years, I’ve taken myself too seriously. I’m the oldest of four kids – my three siblings supposedly watching and learning from my every step. Weight like that is hard enough.

As if life had been designed to be this difficult, Dad was – and is – a pastor. Oldest son of a preacher, the weight was now suffocating. Not only am I living with a family who supposedly looked to me as a model, now an entire church looks at me like I’m some kind of barometer. So I was always kind, always gracious, always did whatever the church asked of me.

With a sentence like that, you have two options: rebel (and rebel hard) or embrace it and get on with it. I went down the embrace route – especially after being converted at age 14. I was a straight-A student, respectful beyond measure, never really spoke much, was a little self-righteous and took myself very seriously. It would be fair to say I was uptight – after all, the world was watching.

Well, then I became reformed. I was 17, in college doing my A-levels, still a bit of a uptight snob and hearing the paradigm-shattering truth that actually God isn’t impressed with my snobbery – He is, in a sense, impressed with Jesus and Jesus alone. Now I had a problem. Things had changed for me – but I was still the oldest of four and the “pastor’s son” (never mind he has two others and a daughter). Clearly I still in my “world” – but remember that the Gospel had entered the equation and everything had now changed.

You see, I could continue putting on the act of having it all together or realise I didn’t really have to, because God would be no less happy with me if I did have a bad day, didn’t want to talk to anyone at church and wanted to be left alone by siblings who in reality don’t really care what I do. But as Tullian Tchividjian has said, the trouble with grace is that we are scared of it, and so, even after becoming reformed, I just transferred the audience for the act. Now I had to keep it all together, be the nicest, most articulate guy and all the rest – to keep reformed folks “on-side”.

So how did we finally get to the place where I really understood the Gospel? Well, last summer, I had one of those “never again” summers. Sparing you all the gory details, I needed heart surgery, fell in love, fell out with my family in a major way and almost nose-dived in my struggle with depression. Coming out of that period, one thing kept me going: God, in the Gospel, calls me to stop trying and start trusting.

And there is the key to not taking yourself too seriously. Thinking every eye – including God’s – is on you puts you under the obligation of looking the part. Actually, the Bible is clear – God’s eye is only on Jesus. As Christians, God sees us clothed in the righteousness of Jesus – and that pleases Him. And so, I’m free to be me – heaven forbid, free to enjoy life – just as God intended. And when it doesn’t pan out, lean on Christ – 1 John 1:8-9 is still true today as it was when it was written.

And there you have it – how to not be so uptight and enjoy life as the Gospel allows us to.

Come to me, all you who labour and are weighed down and I will give you rest – Jesus, Matthew 11:28

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It’s Official…Rob Bell Has Finally Tipped His Hand and Shown Us What Gospel He Truly Believes…

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:01:26 +0000

A good few months, back before I got a self-hosted blog, I wrote a three-part series entitled “Rob Bell Speaks Out of Both Sides of His Mouth”. That 3-part series, especially the second part, is probably the most read piece I have ever written in two years of blogging. You can read that series in its entirely here, here and…here.

Many people said I was being unfair, uncharitable and unloving in saying that Bell was a false teacher in the Body. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news (and what you’re about to watch is bad news…) but it’s now official that Bell is preaching another gospel. Now, before all the lovers of Rob Bell storm my blog and say, “W-w-well, that was a long time ago” – I’m not buying that. According to the timestamp on this video, this was uploaded March 19th of this year – so it would stand to reason that this would be the view of Bell currently.

Alright…enough talk – here is Bell’s “gospel”:

For a clear, helpful rebuttal of Bell’s “gospel”, check out this episode of Fighting for the Faith:

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

R.C. Sproul on Interpreting the Bible

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:56:03 +0000

Dr. R.C. Sproul

Any written document must be interpreted if it is to be understood. The United States of America has nine highly skilled individuals whose daily task is to interpret the Constitution. They comprise the Supreme Court of the land. To interpret the Bible is a far more solemn task than to interpret the U.S. Constitution. It requires great care and diligence. The Bible itself is its own Supreme Court. The chief rule of biblical interpretation is “sacred Scripture is its own interpreter.” This principle means that the Bible is to be interpreted by the Bible. What is obscure in one part of Scripture may be made clear in another. To interpret Scripture by Scripture means that we must not set one passage of Scripture against another passage. Each text must be understood not only in light of its immediate context but also in light of the context of the whole of Scripture.
In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on.
In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book.
The Bible is not to be interpreted according to our own desires and prejudices. We must seek to understand what it actually says and guard against forcing our own views upon it. It is the sport of heretics to seek support from Scripture for false doctrines that have no basis in the text. Satan himself quoted Scripture in an illegitimate way in an effort to seduce Christ to sin (Matthew 4:1-11).
The basic message of the Bible is simple enough and clear enough for a child to understand. Yet the meat of Scripture requires careful attention and study to understand it properly. Some matters treated by the Bible are so complex and profound that they keep the finest scholars perennially engaged in an effort to sort them out.
There are a few principles of interpretation that are basic for all sound study of the Bible. They include the following:

(1) Narratives should be interpreted in light of “teaching” passages. For example, the story of Abraham offering Isaac on Mount Moriah might suggest that God didn’t know that Abraham had true faith. But the didactic portions of Scripture make it clear that God is omniscient.

(2) The implicit must always be interpreted in light of the explicit; never the other way around. That is, if a particular text seems to imply something, we should not accept the implication as correct if it goes against something explicitly stated elsewhere in Scripture.

(3) The laws of logic govern biblical interpretation. If, for example, we know that all cats have tails, we cannot then deduce that some cats do not have tails. If it is true that some cats do not have tails, then it cannot also be true that all cats have tails. This is not a matter merely of technical laws of inference; it is a matter of common sense. Yet the vast majority of erroneous interpretations of the Bible are caused by illegitimate deductions from the Scripture.
Summary:
1. The Bible is its own interpreter.
2. We must interpret the Bible literally—as it is written.
3. The Bible is to be interpreted like any other book.
4. Obscure parts of the Bible are to be interpreted by the clearer parts.
5. The implicit is to be interpreted in light of the explicit.
6. The rules of logic govern what can reasonably be drawn or deduced from Scripture.

Biblical passages for reflection:
Acts 15:15-16
Ephesians 4:11-16

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Don’t Hate The Knowledge – Hate the One Abusing the Knowledge

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:30:57 +0000

I like to play basketball – even though at the current time I’m still recovering from an injury and shouldn’t even be thinking of the court right now. One thing I learnt playing basketball against people who could wipe the floor with me was to not hate the player, but to hate the game (I’m sure my brother Phil Naessens down at Theology Today would agree since he teaches tennis). However I discovered that my little principle for playing basketball is a little transferable to pretty much any endeavour you put your hand to, and in this case, the study of theology.

Of late, I have been loving the blog posts of Parchment and Pen (CMP, you’re a beast!). One of the posts I have really enjoyed of late has been his consideration of the need for hermeneutics which was pointedly titled It Does Not Matter What It Means to You. During the comment thread, one particular lady continued to make the point that we don’t really need theology at all. In her last post, a response to a comment I made, she said the following:

Douglas,
I think really the issues you have with me are more than just me being a little “argumentative as you have said in other places. Yes, God gave you a brain, but what does he say about puffed up intelligence?

1 Corinthians 3
16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Does that sound like God trusts us with our brains? And yes studying God through HIS word, not everybody else’s word.

Galatians 3
1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

What? You mean the Galatians started off Spirit filled and Spirit led until someone came along and preached something else and it bewitched them? You’ve got to be kidding that this could happen to Christians. The point is not the Judaizers (if that was who was preaching it, but I think not) but the fragility and vanity of the person who was gullible enough to go along with it.

Now this line of argument – i.e. “theology is problematic/evil, but it leads to puffing up in pride – is not new to me. I live with a Pentecostal pastor (my Dad) and attend his church (long story, search the blog for “the clampdown”) and generally doctrine is looked down upon. My problem with that line of thinking is that it is directly applicable to any sphere. Anything you do can become a means for pride – my question is, “Who is to blame?” Is it theology by its very nature that makes people prideful? Hate to say it, but nope it’s not. If that were true, Paul was incredibly prideful – having penned half our New Testament.

Well then what is truly to blame for the fact that some of the most prideful people are sometimes the most spiritually prideful? The sickness of the human heart. The fact that man does not merely commit sins, but that he is a sinner through and through. It pervades into his very nature, taking even good things like theology and using them to the end of self-glorification. What my friend the commenter didn’t understand is that it’s not the thing it and of itself that leads to the pride they were discussing – it is the sin-sickness of the human heart that leads to such.

In other words…don’t hate the knowledge, hate the one abusing the knowledge. In fact, don’t even hate them – pray that the truth in their heart will become a reality in the heart…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.