|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
The Master's Seminary Journal Volume Fifteen (2004)
Volume 15, Number 1 (Spring 2004)
Discerning Synoptic Gospel Origins: An Inductive Approach (3-38)
by Robert L. Thomas
The claim of some NT scholars that verbal agreements in the Synoptic Gospels prove literary interdependence
among them opens a challenge to investigate those Gospels thoroughly to check the claim’s validity. An
inductive investigation of fifty-eight triple-tradition sections in the Burton and Goodspeed Harmony of the
Gospels finds that an average of only 16% of the words in the sections are identical. Since a much higher
percentage of identical words is necessary to demonstrate literary interdependence, the inductive study
favors the position of literary independence. Several observations illustrate how the memories of Apostles
and other eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry are sufficient to verify the independence explanation of
Gospel origins. Another insight gained from an inductive study of triple-tradition sections comes from the
agreements of two Gospels against a third. Agreements of two Synoptic Gospels against a third in all
combinations furnishes additional evidence of the failure of literary interdependence to explain Gospel
origins. If any two Gospels depended on a third, their agreement with each other against the alleged source
Gospel is inexplicable. If, however, the three writers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit worked
independently of each other, the random way in which their Gospels coincide with and differ from each other
is exactly what would be expected.
The International Preterist Association: Reformation or Retrogression? (39-58)
by Dennis M. Swanson
The International Preterist Association (IPA) has m ade itself known most
recently at significant venues across the United States. It serves as an umbrella
organization for the theological/eschatological position called Hyper-Preterism
(HP), a position that sees all prophecies of the future fulfilled in the period around
A.D. 70. The ostensible motivation of the movement is to provide an answer to
critics who think that Jesus was mistaken when He promised His return during the
same generation of which He was a part. That motivation is flawed, however,
because such critics doubt that Jesus ever existed and a response on that single issue
is insufficient to change their minds. The methodology of IPA has been to position
itself within the mainstream of evangelical Christianity by redefining preterist
terminology and conveying the false impression of acceptance by evangelicalism.
The theological claims of IPA are heterodox in the area of eschatology, lying outside
any creed or statement of faith of orthodox Christianity. It rejects the millennial
kingdom, the physical return of Christ, all post-A.D. 70 fulfillment of prophecy, and
the traditional view of the resurrection. The consequences of IP A teachings lead to
a hopeless and helpless church, a church with no remembrance and message, with
no ethical imperative, with no hope and reason for patience, with no rewards for
faithfulness, and with no purpose and useful equipment. The system amounts to a
regression to the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:18).
The Folly of the Cross (59-69)
by Donald E. Green
First Cor 1:23 indicates that both Jews and Gentiles refused to believe
Paul’s preaching of Christ crucified. They rejected the message in part because of
the cultural connotations of crucifixion in the first century. Crucifixion was a
vulgar, common execution that the Romans imposed on notorious criminals,
prisoners of war, and rebellious slaves. Its harsh brutality symbolized the
supremacy of the Roman government over the victim. Gentiles thus viewed
crucifixion as a sure sign of the victim ’s defeat. Jews, on the other hand, held
crucified men in even greater contempt because to them crucifixion was a sign of
God’s curse on the victim. Paul’s preaching of Christ crucified thus cut deeply
against the grain of his culture. Jews rejected the idea that the Messiah could be
crucified (and thus cursed) and looked for signs instead. Gentiles rejected as
foolishness the notion that a crucified man could be the only Savior of mankind and
sought eloquent rhetoric in its place. Paul’s example challenges today’s Christian
leader to confront the culture with the same message of Christ crucified and not to
cater to the latest fads in marketing the gospel to the passing whims of unbelievers.
Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are They Related? (71-92)
by Terry Mortenson
Contemporary concern over the negative impact of theories of biological
evolution is justified, but many Christians do not understand the stranglehold that
philosophical naturalism has on geology and astronomy. The historical roots of
philosophical naturalism reach back into the sixteenth century in the works of
Galileo Galilei and Francis Bacon. Evolutionary and naturalistic theories of the
earth’s creation based on uniform itarian assumptions and advocating old-earth
theories emerged in the late eighteenth century. In the early nineteenth century,
many Christians sought to harmonize biblical teaching with old-earth geological
theories such as the gap theory and a tranquil or local Noachian flood. However,
many evangelicals and High Churchmen still held to the literal view of Genesis
1–11. Two Enlightenment-generated philosophical movements in the eighteenth
century, deism and atheism, elevated hum an reason to a place of supreme authority
and took an anti-supernaturalistic view of the Bible, ho lding it to be just another
human book. The two movements with their advocacy of an old-earth and their
effect on astronomy and geology preceded Darwin and supplied him with millions
of years needed for his naturalistic theory of the origin of living things. From this
lineage it is clear that geology is not an unbiased, objective science and that oldearth
theories, naturalism, and uniformitarianism are inseparable. Intelligentdesign
argum ents usually used to combat evolution fail to account for the curse
imposed by God in Genesis 3 and are therefore only partially effective. Intelligentdesign
advocates should recognize that the naturalism represented in evolutiona ry
theories began much earlier than Darwin. A return to the Scriptures and their
teaching of a young earth is the great need of the day.
Second-Blessing Models of Sanctification and Early Dallas Dispensationlaism (93-105)
by Mark A. Snoeberger
An assumption that dispensationalists are anti-Reformed in their
soteriology may stem from an honest misunderstanding of publications of the early
dispensationalists who separated the indwelling of the Spirit from sanctification.
A historical survey of four early dispensationalists—J. N. Darby, James Hall
Brookes, C. I. Scofield, and Lewis Sperry Chafter—reveals whether this model of
sanctification is essential to dispensationalism. Darby rejected a second work of the
Holy Spirit in a believer’s life and was critical of D. L. Moody’s Keswick beliefs.
Brookes, after years of denying a second work of the Spirit, began affirming that
doctrine in 1880. Beginning in 1893, Scofield apparently supported Keswick
teaching of a second work of the Spirit in a believer’s life, though the teaching was
strongly opposed by other dispensationalists. Neither he nor Brookes associated it
with the dispensational system. Chafer, founder and longtime president of Dallas
Seminary and systematizer of dispensationalism, embraced the second work of the
Holy Spirit from the beginning, but not as a part of his dispensational system . His
“second work” view arose from his Oberlin training, his itinerant evangelism, and
the influence of Moody and Scofield on him, not from his dispensational theology.
From a study of these dispensationalists, it is clear that dispensationalism is not
necessarily anti-Reformed in its soteriology.
Volume 15, Number 2 (Fall 2004)
An Issue Dedicated to the Subject of The Christian Scriptures
The Necessity of Scripture (151-64)
by William D. Barrick
Scripture is necessary because God willed to provide it and because
mankind’s condition required it. The image of God in man requires communication
between God and human beings. God’s incomprehensibility is another reason for
the necessity of Scripture. Natural revelation’s insufficiency to teach the nature of
God makes Scripture indispensable. The complexity of divine truth would have
eventually required a written revelation even for Adam had he remained in his
unfallen state. The fall of man made comprehension of divine truth in an oral form
impossible, because corrupt mankind is always prone to distort what is oral. God’s
special revelation had to be in written form. The work of God also makes written
Scripture a necessity, since Scripture is the means that God has chosen to do His
work in human lives. Without Scripture much would be left undone. There can be
no question that Scripture is necessary.
The Sufficency of Scripture (165-74)
by John MacArthur
God’s Word is sufficient to meet every need of the human soul as David
verifies frequently in his psalms. Psalm 19:7-14 is the most comprehensive
statement regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. It is an inspired statement about
Scripture as a qualified guide for every situation. Scripture is comprehensive,
containing everything necessary for one’s spiritual life. Scripture is surer than a
human experience that one may look to in proving God’s power and presence.
Scripture contains divine principles that are the best guide for character and
conduct. Scripture is lucid rather than mystifying so that it enlightens the eyes.
Scripture is void of any flaws and therefore lasts forever. Scripture is true
regarding all things that matter, making it capable of producing comprehensive
righteousness. Because it meets every need in life, Scripture is infinitely more
precious than anything this world has to offer.
The Rationality, Meaningfulness, and Precision of Scripture (175-207)
by Robert L. Thomas
The purity of Scripture includes, among other things, a freedom from irrationality. Biblical
logic is rational and is distinguishable from secular logic. Examples of evangelical abuses of
biblical rationality include charismatic irrationality and apocalyptic irrationality. Secular
reasoning would call biblical logic irrational because it allows no room for God’s plan and
omnipotence. Scripture is connected with sin only when sinful man imposes his own opinions on
the text instead of allowing the Bible to express its own meaning. Common practice among
contemporary evangelicals imposes an interpreter’s preunderstanding on a text at the beginning
of the interpretive process, thus depriving the text of its own meaning. Each text is meaningful
in its own right and deserves to be heard through an objective hermeneutical approach. Scripture
is reliable because of its precision, evidenced frequently throughout Scripture itself. Its
precision requires an appropriately precise response from those who submit themselves to it
(see 2 Tim 2:14-26). Unfortunately, recent evangelical scholarship has not acknowledged the
Bible’s precision, which extends to the very words that Jesus spoke. Earlier evangelicals,
however, did specifically support the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
The Perspicuity of Scripture (209-25)
by Larry D. Pettegrew
The perspicuity or clarity of Scripture in its relation to alm ost all areas of
systematic theology is affected by postmodern hermeneutics that fail to respect the
authority of Scripture. The doctrine raises a number of questions difficult to answer
in a brief span, but two very basic issues are the meaning of the doctrine of
perspicuity and the long-range historical context in which the doctrine has arisen.
The basic doctrine means that the Bible can be understood by people through the
enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and that people need to search the Scripture and
judge for themselves what it means. Scripture itself attests its own perspicuity, but
not to the point that it cannot be misunderstood or is in every point equally simple
and clear. The doctrine does not rule out the need for interpretation, explanation,
and exposition of the Bible by qualified leaders. The doctrine does mean that
Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person, deep enough for highly qualified
readers, clear in its essential ma tters, obscure in som e places to people because of
their sinfulness, understandable through ordinary means, understandable by an
unsaved person on an external level, understandable in its significance by a saved
person through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and available to every believer
whose faith must rest on the Scriptures. Historically, debates about perspicuity have
related to Marcion’s attack on the OT, the fathers’ denial of OT perspicuity,
covenant theology’s subordination of the OT to the NT, and the medieval church’s
attack on biblical perspicuity. The Reformers, the Protestant scholastics, and the
German pietists supported the doctrine which is of primary importance for the
practice of contemporary Christians.
The Authority of Scripture (227-36)
by Richard L. Mayhue
After a brief look at the general concept of “authority,” this essay
continues with an introductory discussion concerning the authority of God. It is
developed in terms of (1) the declarations of Scripture; (2) the displays in God’s
names, nature, and prerogatives; and (3) Satan’s denial. Then, God’s authority is
discussed as it is invested in Scripture in the sense that the Bible is the voice of God
and therefore speaks with His full authority. God’s authority in Scripture can thus
be described as original, unalterable, exclusive, permanent, ultimate, obligatory,
and consequential. Scripture is to be authoritatively preached and submissively
obeyed since the Author of and the authority within will reward righteous obedience
and condemn those who disregard and disobey His authority in Scripture.
Bibliography of Works on The Christian Scriptures (237-44)
by Dennis M. Swanson
|
|
|
|
|
|
