Posts tagged ‘biblical studies’

May 14th, 2012

The Image of the Invisible God–An Exegesis of Col. 1.15-17

I consider myself a philosopher and not a theologian or biblical scholar by any means.  I do have a bachelor’s degree in Religion–biblical studies so I do know how to exegete and perform proper hermeneutics.  With that said, here’s a philosopher’s exegesis of Colossians 1.15-17.

Colossians 1.15-17

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heaves and on the earth,visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Let’s look at εικων (eikon, a likeness, literally statue. A fig. representation—image, nominative singular feminine). This is where we get the word ‘icon.’ (The second Gr. text provided is Westcott/Hort with Diacritics 1853 and Codex Sinaiticus).

May 13th, 2012

Codex Sinaiticus Online

I’m sure some of you are aware of this but you can view high resolution digital images of Codex Sinaiticus online.

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book… continue reading.

May 12th, 2012

An Outline of the Book of Jude

I. Introduction 1-3

A. Author identified as Jude, brother of James 1a

B. Recipients identified as the called and beloved 1b

C. Blessings on the beloved 2

D. The occasion for the letter 3

1. Jude wanted to write about their common salvation 3a

2. Jude felt the letter was a necessity 3b

3. Jude appeals to the beloved to contend for the fait 3c

II. Identification of the ungodly and the judgments they will incur 4-16

A. Ungodly persons entering into the Church 4

1. These persons have been marked for condemnation 4a

2. Deniers and abusers of grace 4b

May 7th, 2012

Where’s Your Verse?

I recently had an online exchange with someone who was arguing against middle knowledge.  He included statements like, “Supposedly Scripture teaches man has a free will” and, “That’s no where in Scripture.”  You’ll be surprised how much doctrine we believe to be true is not explicitly stated in Scripture.  Here are a few things that are not explicitly stated in Scripture that are commonly accepted doctrines:

  • The Trinity:  I believe God exists in a trinity of persons and I believe the Bible teaches the trinity but only implicitly.  You’re not going to find “trinity” or “three beings in one” anywhere in the Bible.
  • The Hypostatic Union:  There isn’t a clear articulation of the coherence of the hypostatic union in Scripture.  The Bible merely teaches what it was and that it happened.
    read more »

May 3rd, 2012

The Bible’s Use of Non-Biblical Texts

This isn’t a problem for inerrancy at all nor should it bother the Christian.  There are other examples but these are just a few.  You’ll see Paul using ancient Greek poetry and philosophy as well.  Enjoy.

1. Book of Jasher Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18

2. Book of Wars of Jehovah Num 21:14

3. Laws of Samuel 1 Sam 10:25

4. Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41

5. Chronicles of Kings of Judah 1 Kings 15:7, 23

6. Chronicles of Kings of Israel 2 Kings 14:15, 28

May 1st, 2012

Molinism and the Grounding Objection

The grounding objection asks the question: By what means or grounds does God know what he knows (particularly middle knowledge)?

Suppose I have an argument similar to the grounding argument from the grounding objection claiming that contingent truths are not self-explanatory but must simply exist, from all eternity, as an ungrounded, metaphysical surd.  How would I, as a Molinist, respond?

This objection is merely the result of misunderstanding the means by which God knows what he does.  God’s knowledge is wholly intuitive and relies on no existent entity and is completely compatible with divine aseity.  According to Luis de Molina,

God does not get his knowledge from things, but knows all things in himself and from himself; therefore, the existence of things, whether in time or eternity, contributes nothing to God’s knowing with certainty what is going to be or not to be… For prior to any existence on the part of the objects, God has within himself the means whereby he knows all things fully and perfectly; and this is why the existence of created things contributes no perfection to the cognition he has of them and does not cause any change in that cognition… [And] God does not need the existence of those things in his eternity in order to know them with certainty.[1]

April 29th, 2012

Jesus the Child

The Birth of Christ

Announcement made to the shepherds (Luke 2.8-20)

  • Shepherds considered unclean
  • Shepherds not educated
  • God revealed His glory
  • Not to priests but shepherds
  • Not in the temple but in a field
  • God gave a sign
  • A baby in a manger
  • Wrapped in cloth
  • In a manger not a palace
  • Wrapped in cloth not luxurious

April 26th, 2012

A Biblical Case for Divine Foreknowledge

Scripture explicitly teaches that God has foreknowledge of future events, employing a specialist vocabulary to refer to such knowledge.  The New Testament introduces a whole family of words associated with God’s knowledge of the future, such as “foreknow” (προγινώσκω), “foreknowledge” (πρόγνωσις), “foresee” (προοράω), “foreordain” (προορίζω), and “foretell” (προμαρτύρομαι).[1]  The first underlying affirmation is the witness behind biblical history.

I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, “My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isa. 46.9-10).[2]

God testifies to his control of history, which He brings about, not by unknown happenstance, but by His accomplishment.  God does not view the course of natural and human history and then make his plans accordingly.  Paul speaks of “the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,” “a plan for the fullness of time” according to “the eternal purpose which He has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3.9; 1.10; 3.11; cf. 2 Tim. 1.9-10).[3] 

April 25th, 2012

Molinism in Modern Philosophical Discussion

The task of a Molinist perspective of middle knowledge is to remove the perceived dilemma between human freedom and divine foreknowledge.  There are a minority of philosophers and theologians who hold to this Molinist doctrine.  On a promising note, middle knowledge is in modern philosophical debate and works advocated by some of the most prominent philosophers such as Thomas Flint, William Lane Craig, Ken Keathley, Kirk MacGregor, and perhaps one of America’s greatest philosophers, Alvin Plantinga.  These leading Molinists serve in prominent societies such as the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Philosophical Association, and the American Academy of Religion, who serve as witnesses to middle knowledge amongst leading Calvinists, Openness Theologians, atheists, and philosophers of other schools of thought.  Middle knowledge, when implemented into modern discussion, serves as a defense to the many forms of the problems of evil (most notably the soteriological problem of evil), a plausible solution with explanatory scope and power for issues such as predestination, the doctrine of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, and is compatible with every other orthodox doctrine.

April 4th, 2012

So, You Need an Education to Understand the Bible? How Dare You Say Such a Thing

I recently shared a previous post of mine in which I discuss my response to the atheist objection that God is a moral monster on Facebook.  Referring to my comment that understanding the Levitical law requires an advanced knowledge of hermeneutics an agnostic/atheist responded:

Are you saying that a person can’t judge morality without some fancy education?

No, this is not what I’m saying at all.  My point is that you don’t learn the hermeneutical approach to understanding the laws and commands in the Old Testament in a first year hermeneutics class.  However, if one wants to have a deep knowledge of the material one does need an education on it.  This doesn’t mean you have to get a degree in it but you do need to be well read on hermeneutics.  Somehow Christians and non-Christians have a stigma suggesting that it’s offensive if a certain degree of knowledge is required to understand something.  How is this offensive? Surely, the Bible can be understood without a degree in theology or biblical studies but to understand it with depth you will have to read and learn.  We do we demand such simplicity?  If a cosmologist says that I need an advanced knowledge of relativity theory and quantum theory to understand the early models of our universe should I be offended? No. There are certain antecedent conditions that must be met in order to really understand something with meaningful depth.  It’s the process of learning and getting an education.