Hermeneutics |

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).

Posted in Biblical Studies, Philosophy, Theology | No Comments »

Tags: Augustine, biblical studies, Codex Sinaiticus, colossians, docetism, exegesis, hermeneutics, image of the invisible God, John Duns Scotus, metaphysics, philosophy, sola gratia, Theology, thomas aquinas

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

Posted in Bible, Biblical Studies | No Comments »

Tags: Bible, biblical studies, Book of Jude, hermeneutics, Jude, Outline of the Book of Jude

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]
read more »

Posted in Molinism | 3 Comments »

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.

Posted in Philosophy, Theology | No Comments »

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.

Posted in Biblical Studies | 2 Comments »

Tags: Bible, biblical studies, education, hermeneutics

March 2nd, 2012

What Does the Bible Say About Tattoos, Beards, and Blood?

Tattoos, beards, and consuming blood is mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus 19.26-28. These verses prohibit tattoos, trimming the edges of one’s beard, and consuming blood. Christians often find themselves puzzled as to what we should do with these types of verses. Are we allowed to have tattoos today? Well, that’s important for me since I’m covered in tattoos. Are we allowed to trim the edges of our beards? Should we let them grow out? Have you ever had a medium-rare steak with just a little bit of blood in it? I’ve provided an exegesis of this passage of Scripture in hopes to help others understand how we should understand this passage and provide insight as to how the Old Testament Law applies to us today.

__________

Leviticus is the sequel to Exodus. At the heart of Exodus is the Sinai Covenant, though it is rarely mentioned in Leviticus.[1] Leviticus explains how covenant worship should be conducted (chs. 1-17), how the covenant people should behave (18-25), and then closes with a section of blessings and curses, entirely appropriate to a covenant document (26).[2] The book enshrines the laws by which the religious and civil organization of the primitive theocracy in Canaan was to be regulated. [3] Leviticus is given in a treaty format consisting of naming the suzerain, giving a historical prologue explaining the background of the treaty, stipulations, a document clause (covenant context), blessings and curses, and the divine witness[es].[4]

Posted in Bible, Biblical Studies, The Church, Theology | 3 Comments »

February 16th, 2012

Can You Lose Your Salvation? A Molinist’s Perspective

^FOCUS:Can a born-again believer lose his or her salvation while simultaneously affirming God’s sovereignty and human free will while being consistent with Scripture?[1]

An Examination of the Perseverance of the Saints Doctrine

Apostolic warnings against apostasy pose a difficulty for the classic doctrine of perseverance of the saints because either the warnings seem superfluous or else it seems possible for the believer to fall away after all. The attempt to construe the warnings as the means by which God effects perseverance fails to distinguish the classical doctrine from a Molinist doctrine, according to which believers can fall away but if fact will not due to God’s extrinsically efficacious grace. A Molinist perspective is coherent and, unlike the classical doctrine does not render superfluous the apostolic admonitions.[2]

The traditional doctrine of perseverance states that not only will the saints maintain grace and salvation, but literally cannot fall from grace. (It is very important to approach these and understand these texts in light of appropriate exegesis.) However, this seems to ignore numerous Scriptures, which warn the danger of apostasy of those who deliberately fall from grace:

Rom. 11:17-24; I Cor. 9:27; Gal. 5:4; Col. 1:23; I Thess. 3:5; I Tim. 1:19-20; II Tim. 2:17-18; Jas. 5:19-20; II Pet. 2:20-22; I Jn. 5:16

Perhaps the most prominent:

Therefore leaving the elementary teachings about the Christ, let us press on the maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, ²of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the death and eternal judgment. ³And this we will do, if God permits. ⁴For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, ⁵and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. ⁷For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings for the vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; ⁸but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed and it ends up being burned. Heb. 6:1-8 (NASB)

Posted in Molinism, Theology | 1 Comment »

Tags: advantages of molinism, Amyrauldianism, anthropomorphism, Arminianism, atonement, biblical studies, Boyd, Calvinism, can you lose your salvation, change of mind, determinism, divine change of mind, divine providence, divine sovereignty, does God change his mind, Evil, Exodus, four views on divine providence, general atonement, Greg Boyd, Gregory Boyd, hermeneutics, Hitler, Jesus Christ, John Calvin, limited atonement, lost salvation, Luis de Molina, Middle Knowledge, Molinism, molinism explained, Molinist, multi-layered middle knowledge hermeneutic, Open theism, open theology, openness, openness theology, Pain and Suffering, Pelagianism, perseverance of the saints, predestination, preservation of the saints, Problem of Evil, problems with molinism, providence, ree will, semi-Pelagianism, singular redemption, Theology, universal atonement, universalism, unlimited atonement, views on divine providence

February 13th, 2012

The Theological Advantages of Molinism

For a context of where I’m coming from concerning Molinism please see my previous posts:

Advantages

Holds a high view of God’s sovereignty while holding to an equal and uncompromising view of human free will.
Provides a better model for understanding how it is simultaneously true that God’s decree of election while His rejection of the unbeliever is conditional.
Affirms the genuine desire on the part of God for all to be saved in His universal salvific will (which is problematic for the Calvinist) claiming that God loved the whole world (John 3:16) yet, Christ has a particular love for the Church (Eph. 5:25).
God control’s all things, but does not cause all things.
read more »

Posted in Molinism, Theology | 20 Comments »

January 23rd, 2012

Does God Ever Literally Change His Mind?–Yes

Think about it for just a moment. Does God ever literally change his mind or course of action? The Christian tradition usually sides with the, ‘No.’ Well, if you say know let me ask you something. What would you do with cognitive, so-called, anthropomorphisms concerning peitionary prayer or changing his course of action (i.e. God changing his mind in response to prayer or sparing Ninenveh)? The traditional hermeneutic concerning anthropomorphisms approaches these statements as literary elements in which God expresses himself through human or animal terms that teach something true about God. Expressions like “the right hand of God” or “the eyes of the Lord,” for example, communicate something true of God’s strength and knowledge. But what does the concept of God’s changing his mind communicate? For example, if indeed it is anthropomorphistic? If God in fact never actually changes his mind [due to prayer], saying he does so doesn’t communicate anything truthful. It is simply inaccurate.[1]

Posted in Apologetics, Bible, Biblical Studies, Molinism | 38 Comments »

Tags: anthropomorphism, biblical studies, change of mind, divine change of mind, does God change his mind, Exodus, hermeneutics, Middle Knowledge, Molinism, multi-layered middle knowledge hermeneutic, Theology

December 29th, 2011

Geisler’s Denial of Inerrancy–The “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”

Norman Geisler has recently released a new addition to his “Licona Letters” condemning Mike Licona. Geisler is very emphatic that there be a differentiation between inerrancy and interpretation. Under this Geislerian understanding of inerrancy, interpretation and inerrancy simply have a formal distinction but are essentially conflated.

[Such] a disjunction of interpretation from inerrancy as Licona makes is contrary to the nature of truth itself…. So, a formal distinction between interpretation and inerrancy does not mean there is an actual separation of the two.[1]

Additionally, Geisler argues contra Licona[2] that the grammatico-historical hermeneutic is neutral. Geisler argues:

[The grammatico-historical] method does not approach the Bible with a historically neutral stance. After all, it is not called the “literal” method for nothing. It assumes there is a sensus literalis (literal sense) to Scripture. In short, it assumes that a text should be taken literally unless there are good grounds in the text and/or in the context to take it otherwise. As a matter of fact, we cannot even know a non-literal (e.g., allegorical or poetic) sense unless we know what is literally true. So, when Jesus said, “I am the vine” this should not be taken literally because we know what a literal vine is, and we know that Jesus is not one. Further, the literal [grammatico-historical] method does not reject the use of figures of speech or even symbolic language. It only insists that the symbols have a literal referent. For example, John speaks of literal angels as “stars” (Rev. 1:20) and a literal Satan as a “red dragon” (Rev. 12:3). However, the literal [grammatico-historical] method does not allow one to take a literal historical persons (like Adam) or events (like a resurrection) as not literal history.
read more »

Posted in Apologetics, Bible, Biblical Studies, Historical Jesus, In The News, Resurrection of Jesus, The Church, Theology | 7 Comments »

Disclaimer

Search the Blog

Support

Book of the Week

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Sententias Store

Posts tagged ‘hermeneutics’