There is no such thing as a “white-coat” interpreter. In other words, there is no one who comes to the text as a scientist who objectively interprets the data. We all are influences by many things including our upbringing, culture, personality, and others preunderstandings. Once we recognize this, we are better equipped to interpret the text honesty. Otherwise, our preunderstanding will always rule over our interpretation.

2. Incidental fallacy: Reading incidental historical texts as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

While the Bible teaches us truths, not every incidental detail is meant to teach these truths. Much of the Bible is made up of information that is important to the overall story, but is not important in isolation to the rest. We must understand the difference between ”prescriptive” and “descriptive” material.  Prescriptive: information that provides the reader with principles that they are to apply to their lives. Descriptive: incidental material that describes the way something was done but is not necessarily meant to encourage the reader in the same action. A good example of this is the Apostles casting lots to elect a new Apostle to replace Judas in Acts 1. This is not mean to teach us how to elect church leaders, it is just the way it was done at that time.

3. Obscurity fallacy: Building theology from obscure material.

Much of the Bible is very clear and understandable. Some of it is very difficult to understand. Do not build theology and doctrine from passages of Scripture that are not clear. For example, it is very difficult to understand what Christ was talking about in John 3:5 where He mentions being “born of water.” “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Because of its obscurity, one should not build a theology that places too much weight on what being “born of water” means. The Bible speaks clearly on many issues concerning salvation in other places. It is best to take the obscure passages and interpret them in light of the clear passages. In doing so, the interpreter can create an interpretive framework upon what these obscure passages cannot mean, even if discovery cannot be made with certainly about what they, in fact, do mean.

Obscure passages can be the most dangerous teachings in Scripture. Sadly, it is often the case that many people and traditions take obscure passages and pack their theology into them since there is no definitive way to say that they are wrong in their interpretation. This is a common fallacy committed among “Christian” cults. In other words, there simply is no more fertile ground for cults and false teaching than obscure passages of the Bible. 

4. Etymological root fallacy: Looking to the root etymology of a word to discover its meaning.

The problem with this is that etymology can often be deceiving, such as in the English word “butterfly” taken from “butter” and “fly.” An etymological study of this word only confuses the current usage. The same can be said of the word “good-bye,” which is taken from the Anglo-Saxon, “God be with you.” When someone says “good-bye,” it does not necessarily (if ever) mean that they are calling a blessing of God’s presence to be with you.

From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies:

“One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word.  How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent.”?  In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the literal meaning of monogenes is “only begotten.”  Is that true?  How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used?

All of this is linguistic nonsense.  We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thistleton offers by way of example our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.”  Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.”  Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nesciusnice”; it is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be “good-by.”  But I know of no one today who in saying that such and such a person is “nice”  believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is ‘ignorant’.”

5. Illegitimate totality transfer: Bringing the full meaning of a word with all its nuances to the present usage.

Take the Greek verb phileo. The UBS dictionary of the Greek New Testament lists these possible meanings: have deep feeling for; love; like (to do or be something); kiss. Some interpreters would commit an ITT by using all of the nuances that the word phileo has when, in fact, it usually only carries one meaning that is determined by the context.

6. Selective use of meaning: Selecting the meaning you like best.

This is like the illegitimate totality transfer in reverse. Instead of the word carrying all the possible nuances, the interpreter will select which nuance he or she likes best. We must remember that the context determines the nuance, not the interpreter.

7. Maverick fallacy: Believing that you don’t need anyone but the Holy Spirit to interpret the text.

This is a common fallacy among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who believe that the Holy Spirit works in isolation from the community of God, both living and dead. Here, people believe that the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of text to the individual as he or she attempts to discern the voice of God coming through the Scriptures, irregardless of what the historic body of Christ has said. The basic problem with this fallacy is that God has always worked in community as the Body of Christ functions together. God most certainly expects the interpreter to draw from other people’s giftedness since we don’t possess all the gifts ourselves. Ultimately, this is a fallacy of arrogance. Use outside resources and you will be discovering the power of the Holy Spirit in the community of God. Work alone and you are probably working in your own power.

Unfortunately, I see this magic wand syndrome applied to Christianity but in different forms and utilizing different language.  No one would cite it as waving a magic wand, but the reality of the formulas that are used to strengthen the sanctification process are in essence applying the same goal.  Do this, and you no longer have to worry about whatever it is that is challenging your commitment to Christ.  Do this, and you will have no problem at all worshipping God.

What are these formulas?  One is leaving our problems at the altar and setting at the feet of Jesus.  There are even altar calls to do just that.  Another formula is worship.  Some suppose that if we worship God hard enough, he will come and wave the magic wand and make all our problems disappear.   Unfortunately, it is based on a misunderstanding of Psalm 22:3, that God shows up when corporate praise is offered, with an expanded version indicating that worship then becomes warfare and an instrument to de-shackle whatever has challenged forward progress.  These are magic wands and I think yields a disconcerting blow to the sanctification process and disengages from the reasons we choose self over God.

Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not saying that we don’t bring our burdens, conflicts, sinful pulls and challenges to the Lord in prayer.  Of course we do, as Peter commends in 1 Peter 5:7.  Nor am I dispelling the need for worship, both individually and corporately.  But the problem comes when we use these methods as formulas that are disconnected from the source of scriptural based sanctification and moreover, render troubled promises of spiritual maturity based on these formulas and expectations of devotion towards God.

The reason these formulas don’t work in and of themselves is because it negates the substance of sanctification and the necessary components to promote spiritual maturity.  It does not happen overnight.  Sanctification is a tedious and messy process that can become discouraging at times.   It is a process where obstacles confront spiritual progress, self-focused thoughts confront Biblical truth,  flesh confronts spirit.  And there are failures; at times lots of failures.  It doesn’t work itself out through sheer will or because we’ve raised our hands in worship.

When a person becomes a Christian, there is a natural opposition to this and its called “flesh”.  The flesh wants its own way and continue to dominate thoughts, motives and deeds. It does not want to be subject to God’s requirements (Romans 8:7).  It does not drop off when we become Christians and will seek to hinder us at every turn.  Moreover, the Christian has a ready-made enemy upon conversion that hates God, his program and his people.  He will do whatever he can to frustrate any steps towards spiritual maturity.

So what does the Christian do?  I believe Romans 12:1-2 provide a great model for the sanctification process, which hinges on two important criteria: 1) offering ourselves and 2) being transformed through a mind renewal.  Worship, according to Romans 12:1-2, is when we avert our affections from self and place them on God.  This requires a transformation of thinking. We will only invest ourselves in Christianity to the extent of the value we have placed on the benefits of following Christ.  Our worship is motivated by this investment.  It unfolds based on how we think about God and his expectations for us.  That does not happen because we engage in a corporate congregational service but unfolds through the realization of the object of faith and worship, which is the triune God.

This is where I think the teaching of doctrine is critical.  Doctrine is not a dry, intellectual subject for academic oriented people but is a necessity for spiritual growth.  Doctrine is teaching and Christian doctrine provides the tenets of why we follow Christ.  To the extent that learning about the nature, character and work of the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is to the extent that we will avert our affections towards him and away from the obstacles that would impede progress.  The more we learn about Him, his plan for history, his expectations for his people, both corporately and individually, the stronger the impetus should be to direct decisions in his favor and away from selfish desires.

Discipleship is learning.  An ignorant saint who raises their hands in corporate worship is still an ignorant saint who will quickly yield to fleshly desires given the opportunity.  I do believe there are times when desires and ingrained sinful habits are removed.  But the overwhelming evidence in both scripture and real life, is that we must engage in an intentional process whereby the Holy Spirit is increasingly relied upon and Christ becomes a greater focus of our affections.  In this way, we learn to discern what is fitting for spiritual maturity. This is aptly summed up in Hebrews 5:14 – “but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trainded to discern good and evil“.

The bottom line is that sanctification does not happen overnight.  It takes engaging in a continual learning process and wrestling with impediments to the Christian walk to the point where discernment of what is right and pleasing towards God is increasingly realized.  That will motivate decisions when confronted with decisions of self vs. God.  Moreover, it will motivate pure worship, from the heart that should increasingly place its affection towards God.  There is no magic wand, only lives making the choice to surrender wholly to God although at times, those choices falter.

But the beautiful thing about that is, as Paul points out in Philippians 2:12-13, that as we walk out the sanctification process, that God is at work in us, both to work and will for his good pleasure.  His grace is sufficient and his remedy through the cross is permanent, offering endless access to his throne of grace where we can find help in our time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

Every now and then, the course of history hinges upon a a single person, a single event, a single year.  Such is the case with Martin Luther and his theological disputation in the city of Heidelberg in the Spring of 1518.  Martin Luther inverted the theological method of his day, and the consequences for the history of western thought have proven nothing short of revolutionary.

In the first installment of this series on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, I described the significance of the Disputation in the unfolding of Luther’s life and thought.  In contrast to the better known ­Ninety-Five Theses, which focused on the selling of indulgences and other abuses of papal power, the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 offers a more expansive vision of the relationship between man and God.

Here, I will consider the first 7 of Luther’s 28 theological theses.  The preface is also significant:

“Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, “Do not rely on your own insight” (Prov. 3:5), we humbly present to the judgment of all those who wish to be here these theological paradoxes, so that it may become clear whether they have been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul, the especially chosen vessel and instrument of Christ, and also from St. Augustine, his most trustworthy interpreter.”

Luther makes clear from the beginning that the theological case he presents is not to be judged by its persuasiveness to ordinary human reasoning, but solely by its fidelity to scripture.  The implication is that worldly wisdom will be offended by the essential “paradoxes” of Christian theology.  This will be a major theme of the Disputation.  The theology of his day, Luther believed, had become an intellectual form of works righteousness.  If God were best encountered in the elaborate edifices of the philosophers and theologians, then knowing God would be a matter of intellectual achievement, and a cause for pride—and our relationship with God would have all the passion of a relationship with a philosophy textbook.  Thus God revealed Himself such that only the humble can receive him.  The wise must become fools, and the mighty meek, if they would know a God who gave Himself as a humiliated and crucified carpenter.

Thus we come to the theological theses.  The fundamental question of the Disputation is implicit in the first: what is the “way to righteousness”?

1.  The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.

2.  Much less can human works, done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.

The radicality of Luther’s claim may take some time to sink in.  Consider what it means.  Sometimes we might imagine that obedience and being “a good person” advance a person 80% of the way to righteousness, and faith in God’s grace spans the 20% gap.  Or perhaps we imagine that our own efforts get us 20% of the way and God’s grace covers the remaining 80%.  In either case, we believe that we are capable of fulfilling the law in part, and require divine grace only because we cannot perfectly or completely fulfill it.

Luther rejects this view, and goes further.  Not only does the Law (not to mention an ethical system devised by men according to their own “natural precepts”) fail to deliver us all the way to righteousness—it fails to advance us at all.  And not only does the Law fail to advance us to righteousness at all—it actually forms a hindrance!

Why should this be?  We refrain from adultery and murder; we give to do the needy; we do what we believe God wants of us.  Are we not, at least partly, fulfilling the Law?

The problem is this: even when we do the right things, we do them for the wrong reasons and in the wrong ways.  As long as we are striving to be righteous before God according to our own terms, we are already rejecting God’s grace and insisting on our own self-sufficiency.  Any attempt to fulfill the law as a means to righteousness before God, no matter how attractive the action itself might be, is a transgression against God.   Only the person who has already humbled himself to receive God’s grace can use the law of God properly.  For him, the law is a “salutary” or helpful guide to life, a “doctrine” for how he can express his love for God in the world.

Even if we do fulfill the Law in part, we are not advancing at all toward righteousness before God.  We are falling further away, because we are only entrenching ourselves more deeply in the presumption that we can justify ourselves before God.  For the unredeemed, then, the Law does not advance us toward righteousness but convicts us of sin and our need for grace.

3.  Although the works of man always seem attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.

4.  Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.

Luther posits a dichotomy here between appearance and actuality, where good and evil are actually the inverse of how they appear to the world.  While men look upon the outward appearance, God judges the heart.  The “works of man,” actions we take to fulfill our sense of right and wrong, may outwardly conform to the law or to ethical systems but inwardly they are done in distrust of God and arrogant presumption.

On the other hand, the “works of God” appear unattractive and evil.  God chooses to work in ways that offend our worldly desires.  As Luther explains in his justification for this thesis, “the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that.”  The way of God leads to suffering and sacrifice, hardship and humiliation, because we must be crucified with Christ before we can be raised with him in new life.

The worldly inversion of good and evil is of the utmost importance to Luther’s theology of the cross.  There is nothing more critical in life than that we should be humbled to receive God’s grace.  Yet the world abhors precisely the “works of God” that tend to humble us.  Since “humility and fear of God are our entire merit,” the “unattractive works which God does in us,” the means by which he humbles us and teaches us to depend upon Him, are of eternal worth.

In other words, the world loves the things that tend to puff us up—and thus lead us further from God.  The world despises the things that humble us—and prepare us for grace.  The world calls “evil” that which works to our good, and calls “good” that which works to our evil.

5.  The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes.

6.  The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.

7.  The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.

I will ignore theses #5 and #6, which address relatively obscure matters, and conclude by commenting on #7.

Shortly before the Ninety-Five Theses and the Heidelberg Disputation, Luther taught a series of lectures at the University of Wittenberg on Paul’s Letter to the Romans.  It was his reading of Romans that revolutionized Luther’s understanding of the gospel.  The letter’s “chief purpose,” he writes, is “to break down, to pluck up, and to destroy all wisdom and righteousness of the flesh.  This includes all works which in the eyes of people or even in our own eyes may be great works.”  Or as he writes later, God has chosen to redeem us not through a righteousness “that comes from us and grows in us, but through one that comes from heaven.”  Thus “we must be taught a righteousness that comes completely from the outside and is foreign.  And therefore our own righteousness that is born in us must first be plucked up.”

Sin, as Luther came to understand it, is “radical,” and like a twisted root it perverts everything that flows from it.  Sin is, at its heart, an attempt to establish our own righteousness before God.  As Luther writes in his justification for this thesis, “To trust in works, which one ought to do in fear, is equivalent to giving oneself the honor and taking it from God, to whom fear is due in connection with every work.  But this is completely wrong, namely to please oneself, to enjoy oneself in one’s works, and toadore oneself as an idol.”

The problem is not that we sin; it is that we are sinners, that we are corrupted through and through with selfishness and pride.  Even when we do things that might be perceived by the world as ethical and right, we do them in sin, in a sinful bid to justify ourselves before God.  The righteous can only act righteously by depending upon God and remaining constantly aware that their own actions do not make them righteous, but they are righteous solely through God’s grace in Christ.

Yet this will not be the end of the story.  Although Luther came to a profound sense of sin, his sense of God’s grace, not coincidentally, was equally profound.  More to come.

Recently, I received an email from a lady I know. Not too long ago I met with her and her husband to discuss her doubts about her faith. She now informs me that her niece who is a missionary in China is experiencing the same doubts about God.  Here is some of what her niece has to say:

“I don’t know what to do. When I hear people talk about God I almost feel uncomfortable…THAT scares the heck out of me. I find myself being pessimistic or maybe just skeptical. When people talk to me about trusting God for my finances, for my time here,  finding a mate, or what comes after China, etc I hear the thought in my head “yea, if He’s real.” What is going on with me?!! How did I get this far? I feel like such a child; an immature Christian. I went from a huge turn around in my faith in 2005 and continually growing closer to him, being closer to Him than ever right after my dad died all the way until last September (God and I were best buddies) to completely questioning his existence.”

Her brother advised her: “Push those thoughts out of my head and simply believe what I know to be true.”

I responded:

______________________________________________

Thanks so much for remembering me!

I feel for you both so much. It looks as if you have such a wonderful relationship with your niece. She sounds like she respects you a great deal.

You both are in such a hard position right now. It is often referred to as “the dark night of the soul” (Google it). It is a time of substantial doubt and disillusionment, and it is common for Christians, even very good Christians, to go through. I don’t have any silver bullet that will get either of you out of this, but I can say that it is often a very positive thing for your faith. But, I have to admit, it is often a time when one comes to the realization that they don’t have any faith. I don’t know where either of you are at, but I know that it is dark.

Her brother told her that she just has “to push those thoughts out of [her] head and simply believe what [she] know[s] to be true. ” I don’t like this advice at all. In fact, I think it could make things worse. The very reason why you are going through these things is because you don’t know them to be true. This is ok. None of us has perfect knowledge, but we need to make our decisions based on sufficient knowledge that God has provided. Often, when I am in the dark night myself, I have three things that I look toward.

1.  The lack of sufficient explanation for all things outside of God.

For me, to not believe in God would take a greater leap of faith. Even though he seems to be absent at times, this does not provide sufficient rational for me to believe that everything came from nothing. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Beauty from non-beauty. An understanding of good and evil from an amoral void. Personhood from non-personhood.

Romans 1 tells us that creation itself is a grand display of God’s nature and attributes. The absurdity of a universe without God produces so many intellectual deformities that I don’t know how to recover and remain emotionally stable or intellectually fulfilled. To reject God, I would have to go intellectually dormant. Therefore, I reestablish my belief in God. Here is a good place to go to read a little more on the arguments for God’s existence.

2. The prophetic nature of the Scripture.

In Isaiah 53 we read a detailed account of Christ’s atonement and resurrection which was written 700 years before the events took place. This passage is an outstanding testimony to the reality of our faith. What makes it even more convincing is that copies of Isaiah were found among the dead sea scrolls. One of them, according to believers and non-believers alike, dates back to nearly 200 years before Christ. This is significant to me since it rules out the possibility that someone wrote this after the fact. For 2000 years, people have scrambled to interpret this passage in other ways to avoid coming to grips with the obvious—that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

We don’t have time to look at other very convincing prophetic passages such as Daniel 9 and 11 (which are nearly as stunning), but suffice it to say that when I have doubts, my mind simply does not know what else to do with Isaiah 53. There is simply nothing like it in all of literature. In Isa 40-48 God calls on people to test him and compare him to other gods asking if they can predict the future the way he has. The answer is “no.” Here is Isaiah 53.

3. Finally, and most importantly, I consider the resurrection of Christ.

What an extraordinary claim. Our faith rests on the reality of Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead. It is the focal point of all else. If Christ rose from the grave, then our faith is true. If he did not, God must still exist, but we need to look for him elsewhere (1 Cor. 15: 16-17). Yet I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that he did raise from the grave. We have dozens of first century documents which purport such an event. We have eye witness testimony and we have the mass growth and expansion of the church that evidences that something had to have happened in the first century significant enough to produce a belief that overtook the world.

How do I explain the existence of the church without the resurrection? How do I explain supposed eye-witnesses dying for this claim if it were not true? How do I explain someone making up a faith built on the humiliation, rejection, and murder of a first century carpenter Messiah? How do I explain the empty tomb. While people attempt to provide alternative explanations, and while these explanations are possibilities, they are not, in any sense, probabilities. (more on this here:  and here). The most probable explanation for these things is that Christ really did raise from the grave. And the implications are tremendous. I would read my article on the death of the 12 Apostles here.

In the end, I don’t think either of you should be ashamed of your doubt. Doubt is often the a bridge to strengthen your belief. Don’t neglect your mind. Don’t push these questions into a closet somewhere in the back of your mind. God is not afraid of your questions or doubts. You will not be reprimanded for them. Bring them before him and seek the answers to your questions.

God is the only one who can ultimately give you security in your beliefs, and I believe this is his perfect will. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can convict you of their truth. Yet, the Holy Spirit uses your search, journey, dark night, and mind to prepare you to accept him at a deeper level.

We all have room to grow in our faith. Myself included. Take courage and don’t lose heart.

I might also suggest that you both get involved in The Theology Program. Its purpose is to help you work through these things at a fundamental level. You can find out more about it here.

I will be in prayer for you both. Please keep me up to date and let’s keep this dialogue going.

Concerning the gift of prophecy (the idea that one can speak on behalf of God in a “thus-says-the-Lord” type way), I have never seen this either. I would love to have God speak to me, or better, through me, in such a way, but he never has. I have never heard the voice of God and have never been his spokesperson other than through my interpretation of Scripture. Although, I must admit, I had a strange occurence twenty years ago. I had a drunk I gave a ride to in downtown Oklahoma City tell me that God told him I was going to be a preacher. At that time in my life, it was a joke to think such. It was not enough for me to think much of, and the guy was drunk!

I could not make a very strong argument that God has stopped sending prophets or stopped speaking directy to people. My theology does not demand such. I have simply just never seen one. However, there is an argument out there that more traditional cessationist’s (those who’s theology argues that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased in the first century, usually with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of Scripture) make to argue their case. It is an argument that I think is very weak and fails to understand the nature of prophecy and the nature of what constitutes Scripture. It goes like this:

If the gift of prophecy is still being given and there are people out there who speak directly on behalf of God, then the canon is still open.

What this means is that if God is still speaking in any way, whatever is spoken, by virtue of it being God’s words, needs to be added to Scripture. Maybe a new book, letter, Psalm, or just a page added to the end of the Bible, this argument insists that a belief in modern day prophecy demands an open canon.

I disagree.

Here is the basic problem I see with such an argument: It misunderstands the nature of prophecy and the nature of the canon.

1. Nature of prophecy: There is no reason to think that prophecy always has corporate or salvific implications. To think that everything that God has ever said is relevant to all people simply cannot be defended. Prophecy can be individualistic. While it is true that the nation of Israel had their prophets that spoke concerning the nation as a whole and the future of the nation and the church has had its Apostles and prophets who spoke on behalf of God concerning the Gospel, the nature of the church, and the consummation of all things, this does not mean this is all prophets speak about. In fact, there are plenty of indications that many of prophets spoke to individuals about rather mundane things such as the location of lost donkeys (1 Sam 9:6, 20), an adulterous affair (2 Sam 12:7), and corporately about issues with no transcendent purpose at all such as acts of God in nature (Acts 11:28). One could argue that these “non-transcendent” prophecies were setting the stage for the prophet so he could qualify to speak about more transcendent issues, but this does not seem to be the case. What transcendent issue did Nathan speak about? What about Abigail?

In the end, while prophets were given by God to speak about issues of paramount importance, they were also given to speak about rather non-consequential stuff as well. Therefore, the drunk who told me I was going to be a pastor could certainly qualify even though his “prophecy” was of no ground breaking importance.

2. Nature of the canon: This is related to the first, but involves a slightly different assumption. The supposition here is that the canon of Scripture is made up of everything that has ever been inspired. Here inspiration equals canon. If it is inspired, it should be added to the Scripture.

But why would we ever assume such a proposition. Scripture is not made up of everything that has ever been inspired. There is very good reason to believe that there were a lot of inspired words from God that never made the canon cut. A great example of this is the early years of the prophet Saul. While were are given some background to his story on how he was called to be a prophet, we don’t know anything about how he was established among the people as a legitimate spokesperson for God. Yet as we follow the narrative in 1 Samuel, we see that Saul considers him an already established prophet due to many prophecies that we don’t have recorded in Scripture. Notice what Saul says in 1 Sam 9:6: “Behold now, there is a man of God in this city, and the man is held in honor; all that he says surely comes true. Now let us go there, perhaps he can tell us about our journey on which we have set out” (emphasis mine). We don’t know all that he said that came true since it is not part of the canon. This is a definite occurrence of God speaking through someone that was not recorded in Scripture. Therefore, the principle “if it is inspired, it belongs in Scripture” fails here. We could do the same with many of the Prophets. Look at Nathan. We barely have anything from him. His most famous encounter is when he indicts David for his affair and murder, but are we to suppose that this was his only prophecy? He was already a respected prophet, yet Scripture does not record his prophecies. What about Christ? Everything he said was, by definition, inspired. Yet we obviously don’t have an exhaustive account of all that he said. In fact, even John says that there were many other miraculous signs that Christ performed which were not written down, letting us know that even signs, wonders, and miracles were not always recorded because of their non-transcendent purpose.

John 20:30-31
“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Therefore, I think that it is evident that not everything that God says belongs in Scripture. The canon of Scripture is made up of everything that God has said that is relevant to all people and, normally, pertains to salvation history.

Again, I am not a charismatic. I have never heard the voice of God. Nor have I seen what I believe to be modern-day prophets. However, I don’t think that it is wise to attempt to argue for a theology that demands the cessation of God speaking today, especially if the argument’s main thrust is that if God is still speaking, then the canon is still open. This argument simply does not work and is contrary to the biblical evidence.

In this post, I will list books and articles that are generally supportive of the approach I take to defending from the Bible the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as the books and articles that Dave recommends as generally supportive of the approach he takes in defending his non-Trinitarian theological position.

Comments are welcome but are limited to additional recommended resources of relevance to the biblical study of the theological issues pertaining to the Trinity, for or against. Comments of any other type (from anyone other than Michael Patton, Dave, or myself) will be deleted at our discretion.

Rob’s Resource List

Books (listed alphabetically)
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Bowman, Robert M., Jr., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.
Boyd, Gregory A. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
__________. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.
Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
McCready, Douglas. He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005.
Shepherd, William H. The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 147. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

Articles/Web Resources
Bowman, Robert M., Jr. “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study.” Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 2008.
__________. “Cross-Examination: Socinus and the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 1 (2008): 59-78.
__________. “Once More, Matthew 28:19 and the Trinity.” Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 2009. (PDF document)

Dave Burke’s Resource List

Books (listed chronologically)
The Racovian Catechism (1605). In Thomas Rees, The Racovian Catechism: With Notes and Illustrations, trans. from the Latin. London: Longman, Hurst,Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1818. A catechism of the Polish Brethren.
Hyndman, J. S. Lectures on the Principles of Unitarianism. Almwick: W. Davison, 1824.
White, Percy. The Doctrine of the Trinity: Analytically Examined and Refuted. 2nd ed. F. Walker, 1937. Updated ed., South Australia: Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1996.
Booker, George. What Are the First Principles? 1990.
Broughton, James, and Peter Southgate. The Trinity: True or False? London: Dawn Book Supply, 1995.
Buzzard, Anthony F., and Charles F. Hunting. The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Lanham, Md.: International Scholars Publications, 1998.
Perry, Andrew. Before He Was Born: Combating Arguments for the Pre-existence of Christ. Lulu—Willow Publications, 2007.
Zarley, Kermit. The Restitution of Jesus Christ. Servetus the Evangelical, 2009. See http://servetustheevangelical.com/.

Articles/Web Resources
Abel, Ron. Wrested Scriptures.
Finnegan, Sean. “Interpreting Jesus’ Birth.” Kingdom Ready [blog], 9 Dec. 2009.
Schoenheit, John. “What do Biblical Unitarians Believe?” Spirit and Truth Fellowship International.
__________. “Who is Jesus Christ?” Spirit and Truth Fellowship International.
Shockley, Ron. “The Two Adams.” Kingdom Ready [blog], 28 March 2009.

While there is a sense in which I believe the canon is closed, there is also a sense in which I don’t believe the canon is closed. Let me explain.

In order to maintain that the canon is closed, most Christians would refer the the first few centuries of the church. In particular councils such as Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, as well as Athanasius’ Easter Letter will be referred to as evidence that the canon of the New Testament had closed. The Old Testament, according to most, was already established and closed by the time of Christ. For this, reference would be made to the New Testament itself, as well as the testimony of Josephus, Philo, and some of the inter-testamental works.

My contention with this assumption is that to say that the canon is “closed” needs to be understood more in an observational way rather than an authoritative pronouncement. The term “closed” might not be the best word since it implies a necessary finality concerning the contents of Scripture. This is something that I don’t believe we can say in the way that we often say it for two primary reasons:

1. Scripture itself does not limit the canon to 66 books. No matter how hard you look, one would be hard pressed to find a place that definitely “closes” the canon. Revelation 22:18-19 is often referred to as evidence:

Revelation 22:18-19: I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

The problem with using this passage is that it is specific to the book of Revelation. Just because the book of Revelation occurs last in our canon does not mean that this warning serves as a book end for the entire Bible. It is meant to communicate a general statement about those who would be tempted to add to or take away from God’s word in general, and to the book of Revelation in specific. Yet the same warning is given in the book of Deuteronomy and the Proverbs:

Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Proverbs 30:6: Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Does this mean that once Deuteronomy or Proverbs were complete that no one was supposed to add any other books? I don’t know anyone who would make that argument.

2. The canon is self-regulating. The idea of canon is simply a way of expressing those books that are from God, authoritative, intentional toward a specific purpose and, therefore, part of Scripture. There is no reason to ever “close” it if by close you mean it is not possible for God to add to it. I know that people are simply trying to say that other people cannot add to it, but I think in doing so we have philosophically overstepped our bounds. In other words, we don’t close anything. God simply stops adding to it. We have no right to say God cannot add to it because it is “closed.” This way, God regulates His own revelation.

In short, the argument that I am making is that the canon is closed only to the degree that God is no longer adding to it. But it is not closed in the sense that God cannot add to it were He to make an unforeseen movement in the history of revelation. The primary reason why we have not added anything to the canon in the last two-thousand years is simply because God has not used an authenticated apostle or prophet to speak His word and add to it in two-thousand years. Only in this sense is the canon “closed.”

Now, to be clear, I don’t think that God will ever add anything to the canon and I am not meaning to suggest otherwise. I believe that the Bible’s primary purpose is to communicate the history of redemption and I believe that we have good reason to believe that this history is complete. Listen to the writer of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1-2: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

“In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” contrasts the former means of revelation through the “prophets.” It suggests finality. God is no longer speaking to us through a mediator who is unlike Him, but through His genetic equal—His Son! What more do we need? Therefore, I think we are safe believing that God’s revelation is complete, even if we cannot be overly dogmatic about this.

When communicating the doctrine of canonicity, I think this is as far as we can go: It seems that the Scriptures are complete for two reasons: 1) God has not added to it through an authenticated spokes person in two-thousand years, and 2) the purpose of Scripture is completed with the advent of Christ and the communication of the Gospel.

I know that the idea of a theoretically open canon will not sit well with many people, especially Christian apologists who combat Mormonism as well as cessationists who combat modern-day prophets. Yet there is really no issue with either when we realize that Mormonism falls due to its inability to authenticate Joseph Smith as a prophet and its contradiction with previous revelation. Concerning modern-day prophets, I don’t have an issue. I don’t believe that we have seen a prophet since the time of the apostles, but this does not mean that God cannot send one.

In short, God can do whatever He desires. Our theological constructs and definitions of a “closed canon” do not lock Him out of our room. If He wants to add to the canon or speak through a prophet, He can do so. Neither you, I, a church council, or a Pope can put a “do not enter” on the door of revelation.

I don’t mind saying the canon is closed so long as we qualify this. The canon is “closed” to the degree that God is no longer adding to it.

To be fair, this proposition is not quit as provocative as it might seem. While this will irk Roman Catholics who believe that the Church itself closed the canon, Protestants have historically believed that the church simply recognizes the canon, but does not have the authority to close it.

This morning was a perfect illustration.  I try to read at least one Psalm in the morning as part of devotional time.  However, I got hung up on a passage this morning in Psalm 39.  I was having trouble deciphering what exactly the author was getting at, especially in vs. 5 and the “handbreath”.  My initial inclination was to not bother with any commentaries because after all, it was devotional reading and in devotional reading you just let the passage speak to you. The problem was that I really needed to understand what it was saying, so I did some research.  One commentator explained the context and the chiastic structure and the meaning of “handbreadth” in Hebrew.  I was relieved.  Not only that, but the greater clarity gave the passage more significance because as it resonated with some deeply personal challenges I have experienced.  It prompted worship. And it also clarified for me why I have a problem with this polarized approach to scripture.

For the Christian, the whole point of studying scripture is to understand the very revelation of God and his ultimate revelation in Christ.  The Bible is God’s self-disclosure as he has exposed himself and his plan for history through the pens of human authors.   God’s plan of redemption and reconciliation to mankind, is the overriding messages that coalesces the diversity of genres and the seemingly disjointed eras into a unified whole.  Therefore, reading the Bible is not just for information purposes but is expressly designed to make an impact on the lives of those have placed faith in the salvation that Christ offers.   Those authors were writing with a particular purpose as they record events, narratives, poems, letters under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all to unveil the overriding message of Christ.   That message speaks volumes but it must be understood in light of how the authors intended it.  I have been dragging my tail on a post about authorial intent hermeneutics and the importance of meaning, which will provide more detail on the subject (hopefully I now have the incentive to get off my duff and finish it!).  But suffice it to say that understanding what we are reading is significant.  Moreover, it is to understand where the Christian fits into that plan and how to apply what is learned so that our lives are transformed by the very words we read.

I think you lose something with the design and application of scripture by creating this dichotomy.  On one hand, reading with the intention of academic study can circumvent the application of scripture and associate studying with anti-spiritual activity.  This type of reading can be considered less spiritual.  On the other hand, reading devotionally can create a false sense of meaning upon scripture because we may not be fully engaged with where the author is coming from.  It also can give the false impression that you are engaged in a spiritual activity simply because you’re not bogged down with investigation or that devotional reading is somehow more spiritual.

An academically oriented investigation of scripture and Biblical theology  need not be devoid of the spiritual significance of God’s revelation.  In fact, I would argue that it intensely spiritual thing to do to gain as much understanding as possible, which builds the foundation for Christ-centered spirituality.  I have discovered that even the most academically oriented study can be transformed into an intense devotional.  I have this especially true with Greek.  The learning process is tough as the mechanics of the language are learned.  But those same mechanics compel the force of the original language to illustrate what God would have us to know.  It does not have to stop at just learning the information but should be followed up with deep reflection about what the information means.  The same is true for studying theology proper or an intense investigation into scriptural analysis and background studies.  More information should lead to more understanding, which should create a greater heart impact, which should lead to more worship.  It is all in how the information is applied not the fact that you have more information.

On the flipside, if we just pick up the Bible and read along for devotional value and not be concerned with authorial intent, we can really miss what the author is trying to get at.  Even worse, we can derive a misunderstanding of what the author is communicating through a self-focused desire to have our heart impacted, without reconciling our understanding with that of the authors’ and especially the context.  I recall a time I used to do this with the Old Testament prophets and wanted God to speak to me personally.  A lot of misunderstanding was developed because of that and to this day it is continually being unraveled.  How rich and rewarding that correction process has been!

Now, I am not saying that every reading session needs to treated like a seminary course.  But I do think there is a danger in pitting one type of study against the other, as if one type of reading precludes the other.  If we are seeking to know about God on his terms, it is all spiritual.  In that way, every study session should be devotional.

I may be alone in not wanting to have two different kind of reading programs.  But the thought of God condescending to make Himself known, really encourages me to strive as best as possible to understand what is meant by what is being communicated.  In this we who call Christ savior and king, come to know and understand His heart, which should open ours and bow down in worship.

“Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law and keep it with all my heart.” (Psalm 119:34)

There is an old dictum to knowledge. It goes something like this:

There are four types of people:

1. The one who doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He is a fool–shun him.

2. The one who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know. He is a student–help him learn.

3. The one who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows. He is an unenlightened person–enlighten him.

4. The one who knows and knows that he knows. He is a wise man–follow him.

I would like to add a fifth:

5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.

This fifth category refers to those who have all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is very common in theological circles. I believe that it is prevalent within Evangelicalism as a basic creedal confession takes the place of doctrinal understanding. I know of many people who confess a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, but they really don’t know why they believe in this doctrine. I know of many people who believe that Christ rose bodily from the grave, but they could not give you even the most basic defense of their confession. Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?

The fidest (one who defines faith as a blind leap into the dark) would answer with an unqualified, “Yes.” The evidentialist (one who believes that evidence plays a vital role in faith) would say, “Maybe, maybe not.” I side with the evidentialist. There is a large chasm between assent to a proposition and being convicted of that proposition. And there is a fine line between emotional conviction and conviction of the Holy Spirit. To answer the question How do you know that Christ rose from the grave? with a “I just know that I know!” answer is both insufficient and, dare I say, sinfully neglectful of our duty to engage our minds. It creates an unjustified dichotomy between the mind and the heart.

“The heart will not accept what the mind rejects.” These words are attributed to Jonathan Edwards (although I have never seen the reference). Nevertheless, I believe this is true. The one who knows but does not know how he knows is in great danger of one day losing what he knew. Why? Because the justification for this knowledge is unqualified and insufficient. Creating a dichotomy between the mind and the heart is a self-defense mechanism for those who are truly insecure about their faith. They don’t have enough confidence in their faith to subject it to the scrutiny that the mind demands. For these people, an introduction of the mind’s interrogation to their beliefs is like playing the lottery. There is a chance—a good chance—that it will not survive, so it is better not to take that chance. They simply “know that they know that they know.” Or, as some would put it, they know because they have a “burning in their bosom”—that’s enough for them.

The problem with this fidestic approach to faith is that, in the end, everyone can claim this “burning in the bosom.” No one and no belief system is disqualified from its epistemological methodology. Two people with completely different belief systems can both have this subjective confidence with hearts on fire. Both can (and often do) claim that their conviction is from the Holy Spirit. Yet one of them is wrong.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there is a subjective conviction of the Holy Spirit. But I believe that the conviction that the Holy Spirit brings is based upon the objective realities of the truths He represents. These truths are not acquired by a sound method of meditation or a blind adherence to what mom and dad taught you, but by wrestling with the issues and coming to your faith on your own. There has to be a deconstruction process that allows the Holy Spirit to bring about a conviction that we can truly credit to Him. We don’t have to disassociate His conviction with our studies. It is not an either/or but a both/and. God brings about conviction through our studies. This is the medium He uses. Yet unfortunately we often justify our lazy minds by placing the blame on Him for our intellectual disassociation.

Having all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is not a good thing. The reasons provide the foundation for our beliefs. If we do not construct a method of inquiry that has integrity, our beliefs will lack integrity. If our beliefs lack integrity, do we truly believe them?

We must learn to deconstruct our beliefs. No, not in the postmodern sense of the term. Postmodernism seeks to deconstruct without the intention of reconstructing. They do this because part of their presumed construction says that we cannot reconstruct (which is self-defeating). We deconstruct so that we can truly believe. We deconstruct so that we don’t have a faith of hibernated fear. We deconstruct so that when our fortress is rebuilt, it can weather any trial, internal or external. Ultimately, we deconstruct so that we can glorify God by loving Him with all our mind.

I know that this is difficult for many to hear. I know that the proposition is a fearful one. We are much more comfortable in our naive existence. But we must graduate our faith and encourage others to do the same. We must have the right beliefs for the right reasons.

I believe that a failure to do so, from a human standpoint, sets people up for their journey away from Christianity. This is why you see me singing this same tune so often.

1 Sam. 26:5-16:
5 David then arose and came to the place where Saul had camped. And David saw the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the commander of his army; and Saul was lying in the circle of the camp, and the people were camped around him.
6 Then David said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, saying, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the camp?” And Abishai said, “I will go down with you.”
7 So David and Abishai came to the people by night, and behold, Saul lay sleeping inside the circle of the camp with his spear stuck in the ground at his head; and Abner and the people were lying around him.
8 Then Abishai said to David, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore, please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.”
9 But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD’S anointed and be without guilt?”
10 David also said, “As the LORD lives, surely the LORD will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish.
11 “The LORD forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the LORD’S anointed; but now please take the spear that is at his head and the jug of water, and let us go.”
12 So David took the spear and the jug of water from beside Saul’s head, and they went away, but no one saw or knew it, nor did any awake, for they were all asleep, because a sound sleep from the LORD had fallen on them.
13 Then David crossed over to the other side and stood on top of the mountain at a distance with a large area between them.
14 David called to the people and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, “Will you not answer, Abner?” Then Abner replied, “Who are you who calls to the king?”
15 So David said to Abner, “Are you not a man? And who is like you in Israel? Why then have you not guarded your lord the king? For one of the people came to destroy the king your lord.
16 “This thing that you have done is not good. As the LORD lives, all of you must surely die, because you did not guard your lord, the LORD’S anointed. And now, see where the king’s spear is and the jug of water that was at his head.”
(NASU)

I wonder if you notice the issue. It is not easy to find, but it is very interesting (at least to me). Here we have David, the heroic and God fearing protagonist, being in error. I will explain the error in just a moment.

Let me give you some background to my hermeneutics (method of interpretation): Generally, I follow a rule in narrative portions of Scripture. I allow for error in the “bad guys” but don’t expect it from the “good guys.” In other words, when the Bible has put someone in a positive or authoritative light (such as Peter in Acts 2), most of the time what they say can be trusted. For example, when Daniel (who is a very flat yet godly character) speaks, there is not any reason to think that what he says contains error. Therefore, we can build doctrine from it. With “bad guys,” such as Satan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Job’s friends, it is hard to know whether to believe what they are saying.

Now, back to our current passage. David here is at the height of his heroic ventures. It is not possible for him to be in a more Godly light. He is the one who trusts the Lord. He is the one who will not usurp authority from “God’s anointed.” He, as we follow the narrative, is the one who acts on behalf of God. So there is no question as to his status at this point in the narrative. However, David makes a false accusation against Abner and calls for his execution based on this false accusation. Abner had fallen asleep and failed to protect King Saul when David took the spear from where he slept. David goes a distance away and brings an indictment against Abner for not protecting the King implying that it was his negligence. But the text tells us that it was not Abner’s fault. Verse 12 says that the Lord was responsible for Abner’s inability to protect the King: “So David took the spear and the jug of water from beside Saul’s head, and they went away, but no one saw or knew it, nor did any awake, for they were all asleep, because a sound sleep from the LORD had fallen on them” (Emphasis mine). David, in verse 16, says wrongly to Abner: “This thing that you have done is not good. As the LORD lives, all of you must surely die, because you did not guard your lord, the LORD’S anointed.”

So David was in error and called for the wrongful execution of the King’s guard.

You may say to me that this has no theological relevance one way or another and is incidental to the story. I would agree. However, we must let this story nuance our understanding of inerrancy a bit. My definition of inerrancy is that the Bible, when interpreted correctly, is true in everything that it intends to teach. My assumption is that not everything in the Bible is intending to teach something. Like here, there are many things that might be incidental to the main story line. Most importantly, the main characters can be in error in these incidentals. That is as far as I am willing to go with this right now.

The question becomes: could the main character in a narrative, when presented in a positive light in the story, be wrong about doctrinal issues as well as historical issues? In other words, is what the main character says aways what the Bible is intending to teach or can it be that the Bible is simply accurately recording what the main character says without putting a theological stamp of approval on it? I am going to leave this one alone for now, but we will look deeper into this when we look at James in Acts 15.

I do, however, want you to notice two things particular to this passage: 

1. The text does bring light to the narrative by giving the reader an insider’s understanding of what actually happened. Therefore, we might be able to create a tentative rule that says this: We can assume that the protagonist of a narrative, when presented in a positive light, always speaks truly unless the text states otherwise. I am not sure that this will aways work though.

2. It was David, a character in the narrative, who was wrong, not the author of the book of 1 Samuel. This is important to notice. The author of Samuel was accurate in his understanding and accounting of the event. Therefore, there is no actual error in the text, only from David, a character of the story.

Ultimately, this is an issue of interpretation, not necessarily inerrancy. However, this does help us to adjust a bit in our understanding of what inerrancy means. Inerrancy does not always, in my opinion, guarantee the truthfulness of the characters in narratives, even when they are godly heroes.