textual criticism

Reasoned Eclecticism | Theological Word of the Day

Reasoned Eclecticism
Date July 30, 2008

A method of textual criticism (reconstructing the original text of Scripture) which believes that the most accurate reading of the Scripture comes from an approach that takes into account all the evidence. It deals with each variant (differences in the manuscripts) by examining them on a case-by-case basis, believing that the variant that best accounts for all the others represents the best or the preferred reading. This method is to be distinguished from those which one look to one text-type as the standard. Also known as genuine or moderate eclecticism.

Word of the Day from Bible.org

pericope | Theological Word of the Day

pericope
Date July 28, 2008

Gk. “a cutting out”

A single unit of thought in the Scripture. This could comprise a sentence or verse (as in the Proverbs), a paragraph, or a series of paragraphs which makes up one argument or narrative. For example, the story of Abraham’s encounter with the Angels and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is one pericope and the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one pericope. When teaching or preaching the Scriptures, it is best to teach one pericope at a time, not necessarily one verse or chapter at a time.

Hyper-Preterism

Researching Hyper-preterism led me to the following from CRTA Centerfor Reformed Theology and Apologetics

A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism
By Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

From time to time I receive letters from men declaring themselves "Reconstructionist" and "consistent preterist." The "consistent preterist" believes that all prophecy is fulfilled in the A. D. 70 destruction of the Temple, including the Second Advent, the resurrection of the dead, the great Judgment, and so forth. Due to my primary writing ministry against rapidly changing dispensationalism, I have not had time to deal extensively with the issue, but I do have some random thoughts that I will make public in this article. These thoughts are based on readings from their monthly publications and books, of which I have a great number.

Let me begin by noting that, in the first place, I do not know how anyone could credibly claim to be postmillennial and hyper-preterist, nor do I understand how he could claim to be Reconstructionist, while maintaining his hyper-preterism. If all prophecy was fulfilled in the first-century events, then who is to say it is the will of God for the gospel to exercise world-wide victory? There is no remaining word of prophecy to inform us of such. Furthermore, the hyper-preterist position cannot be theonomic in that in its view the Law came to fulfillment in the passing away of the Jewish order ( Mt. 5:17-19 ). So a hyper-preterist cannot be a Reconstructionist (theonomic postmillennialist) on exegetical grounds (although his heart might wish for the Reconstructionist world view).

Furthermore, there are numerous exegetical and theological problems I have with the hyper-preterist viewpoint. I deem my historic, orthodox preterism to be exegetical preterism (because I find specific passages calling for specific preterist events); I deem Max King and Ed Stevens' views to be theological preterism or comprehensive preterism (they apply exegetical conclusions drawn from several eschatological passages to all eschatological passages, because of their theological paradigm). Let me quickly list some of my present objections; it is hoped that I will later find time to sit down and work on this whole issue (since dispensationalism is in such radical transition and I have a ministry toward dispensationalists, I have tended to focus any spare time I can afford on dispensationalism).

Creedal Failure

First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A. D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A. D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A. D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?

Biblical Perspicuity

Second, hyper-preterism has serious implications for the perspicuity of Scripture. This viewpoint not only has implications for the later creeds, but for the instructional abilities of the apostles: no one in church history knew the major issues of which they spoke -- until very recently! Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that significance? Clement of Rome lived through A. D. 70 and had no idea he was resurrected! He continued to look for a physical resurrection (Clement 50:3). Jude's (supposed) grandsons still sought a physical resurrection (cf. Eusebius, EH 3:24:4). Whoever these men were, they came right out of the first generation and in the land of Israel -- with absolutely no inkling of an A. D. 70 resurrection or a past second Advent. See also the Didache 10:5; 16:1ff (first century); Ignatius; Trallians 9:2; Smyrnaens 2:1; 6:1; Letter to Polycarp 3:2 (early second century); Polycarp 2:1; 6:2; 7:1. See also Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr.

Berkouwer rightly notes that the reason the resurrection found early creedal acceptance was because of the clear emphasis of the New Testament. The hyper-preterist view has serious and embarrassing implications for the perspicuity of Scripture -- and despite the fact that we are now (supposedly) in our resurrected states and have the outpoured Holy Spirit and his gift of teachers who were to protect us from every wind of doctrine ( Eph. 4 )!

No Canon

Third, the hyper-preterist system leaves the New Covenant Christian (in our post-A. D. 70 era) without a canon. If all prophecy was fulfilled prior to A. D. 70 and if the entire New Testament spoke to issues in the pre-A. D. 70 time frame, we do not have any directly relevant passages for us. The entire New Testament must be transposed before we can use it.

Hermeneutic Failure

Fourth, hyper-preterism suffers from serious errors in its hermeneutical methodology. When a contextually defined passage applies to the A. D. 70 event, the hyper-preterist will take all passages with similar language and apply them to A.D. 70, as well. But similarity does not imply identity; Christ cleansed the temple twice and in virtually identical ways; but the two events are not the same. Furthermore, we must distinguish sense and referent; there are several types of "resurrection" in Scripture: the dry bones of Ez. 37; spiritual redemption in John 5:24; physical redemption at the grave in John 5:28; Israel's renewal in Christ in Rom. 11:15; and of the Beast in Rev. 13:3. I hold that passages specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators (such as "this generation," "shortly," "at hand," "near," and similar wording) are to be applied to A. D. 70, but similar-sounding passages may or may not be so applied.

Resurrection Errors

Fifth, there is a serious problem with the removal of the physical resurrection from systematic theology. Christ's resurrection is expressly declared to be the paradigm of our own ( 1 Cor. 15:20ff) . Yet we know that his was a physical, tangible resurrection ( Lk. 24:39 ), whereas ours is (supposedly) spiritual. What happens to the Biblically defined analogy between Christ's resurrection and ours in the hyper-preterist system?

Anthropological Errors

Sixth, there are numerous other theological and exegetical problems with a spiritual-only resurrection. For one thing, the hyper-preterist view tends to diminish the significance of the somatic implications of sin: Adam's sin had physical effects, as well as judicial and spiritual effects; where are these taken care of in the hyper-preterist system? Death's implications are not just judicial and spiritual, but also physical ( Gen. 3:14, 19; Rom. 6:23 ). If Christians now are fulfilling the resurrection expectation of Scripture, then the gnostics of the early Christian centuries were correct! The physical world seems to be superfluous, in the hyper-preterist viewpoint. The anthropology of hyper-preterism is defective in this, not allowing the theological significance of the body/soul nature of man ( Gen. 2:7 ). This can also have implications for the person of Christ and the reality of his humanity.

Piercing Questions

Seventh, regarding the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, we must wonder why Paul was mocked by the Greeks in Acts 17 for believing in the resurrection, if it were not a physical reality. We must wonder why Paul aligned himself with the Pharisees on the issue of the resurrection ( Ac. 23:6-9; 24:15, 21). We must wonder why we Christians still marry and are given in marriage, since Christ said in the resurrection we will not marry ( Lk. 20:35 ). We must wonder why the apostles never corrected the widespread notion of a physical resurrection, which was so current in Judaism (cf. Josephus, Talmud, etc.). We must wonder why we "resurrected" Christians must yet die; why should we not leave this world like Enoch and Elijah? Furthermore, where and what is the resurrection of the lost ( Jn. 5; Rev. 20 )? Paul considered Hymenæus and Philetus as having made ship-wreck of men's faith by saying the resurrection is past ( 2 Tim. 2:17-18 ). A wrong view of the resurrection is a serious matter to Paul.

Effects of the Resurrection

Eighth, practically I wonder on the hyper-preterist view what the difference our resurrection makes in this life? We get ill and are weak on the same scale as those prior to the A. D. 70 resurrection. Did this glorious resurrection of the "spiritual body" have no impact on our present condition? A hyper-preterist analysis might leave us to expect that Paul looked to A. D. 70 as an agent of relief from the groanings and the temptations of the flesh ( Rom. 7:25 ), yet we still have such -- despite the supposed resurrection.

Christology Implications

Ninth, Acts 1 clearly defines Christ's second Advent in terms of his ascension, which was physical and visible. For example, in Acts 1:8-11 Luke is careful to say the disciples were "beholding" him as he ascended; he was received "from the eyes of them" (v. 9b); they were "gazing" as he was "going" ( v. 10); they were "looking" ( v. 11); they "beheld" ( v. 11). Clearly his ascension was a visible and glorious phenomenon involving his tangible resurrected body. And there was an actual visible cloud associated with it ( v. 10). The angelic messengers resolutely declare "this same Jesus" (i.e., the Jesus they knew for over three years, who is now in a tangible resurrected body) will "so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven" ( v. 11). The Greek on tropon literally means "what manner." The Greek phrase "never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner" (A. Alexander, Acts, ad loc.). Consequently, we have express Biblical warrant to expect a visible, bodily, glorious return of Christ paralleling in kind the ascension. The hyper-preterist position goes contrary to this clear teaching of Scripture.

A Brief Millennium

Tenth, if A. D. 70 ends the Messianic reign of Christ (cf. the hyper-preterist view of 1 Cor. 15:24, 28), then the glorious Messianic era prophesied throughout the Old Testament is reduced to a forty-year interregnum, whereas by all accounts it is a lengthy, glorious era. A problem with premillennialism is that it reduces Christ's reign to 1000 literal years; hyper-preterism reduces it further to forty years! The prophetical expressions of the kingdom tend to speak of an enormous period of time, even employing terms that are frequently used of eternity. Does Christ's kingdom parallel David's so that it only lasts for the same time frame?

History and Church Errors

Eleventh, hyper-preterists eternalize time, by allowing history to continue forever. This not only goes against express statements of Scripture, but also has God dealing with a universe in which sin will dwell forever and ever and ever. There is no final conclusion to the matter of man's rebellion; there is no final reckoning with sin. Christ tells us that the judgment will be against rebels in their bodies, not "spiritual" bodies ( Mt. 10:28 ). The hyper-preterist system does not reach back far enough (to the Fall and the curse on the physical world) to be able to understand the significance of redemption as it moves to a final, conclusive consummation, ridding the cursed world of sin. The full failure of the First Adam must be overcome by the full success of the Second Adam.

Ecclesiastical Labor

Twelfth, hyper-preterism has serious negative implications for ecclesiastical labor. Is the Great Commission delimited to the pre-A. D. 70 era, due to the interpretation of "the end" by hyper-preterists ( Mt. 28:20 )? Is the Lord's Supper superfluous today, having been fulfilled in Christ's (alleged) Second Advent in A. D. 70 ( 1 Cor. 11:26 )?

Kenneth L. Gentry holds several degrees in theology, including a Th.D. from Whitefield Seminary. He is pastor of Reedy River Presbyterian Church in Conestee, South Carolina, and has written several books and numerous essays. He can be contacted at 46 Main St., Conestee, SC 29636 or KennethGentry@CompuServe.COM.
Copyright © 1997 The Chalcedon Foundation

More Catholic doctrine

extra ecclesiam nulla salus | Theological Word of the Day

extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Date July 25, 2008

Latin, “outside the church, no salvation”

This phrase has a long theological history, being coined by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in third century, but its meaning today is debated among scholars. While it expressed the belief that the church is necessary for salvation, this does not speak to the issues raised by the multiple divisions within the church that followed through the middle ages and into the Reformation and what is mean, in light of such, by the word “church.” All traditions of Christianity, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, can claim this phrase as substantially correct, but all three traditions would define it with a particular nuance which is rejected by the other. Protestants would define “church” as the universal or invisible body of Christ that is not necessarily represented by one visible expression, tradition, or denomination. Both Catholics and Orthodox, today, will claim that their tradition is the true representation of the “church,” outside of which there is no salvation. However, one might find themselves within this “church” without knowledge of his or her membership.

1Chronicles 11

Read this this am , struck by

• rejection of the Levites by Jeroboam
• hand of God in judgment on the state of the people "this thing is from me"
• the later blessing in the life of Rehoboam leads to pride and judgement from God

Any time affluence enters into the soul, the love of the world, where the love of the Father is not, leds to loss in the life of the Christian.

More Catholic Theology versus the Bible

Mariology | Theological Word of the Day

* About
* Subscribe
* Home

Mariology
Date July 24, 2008

The study of the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Christian faith. This discipline has traditionally been seen more in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions as the veneration of Mary will be more pronounced and creedal. While Protestants have traditionally rejected the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, most would believe that she was blessed of God and is worthy of great honor and respect as the mother of Christ.

Catholic Theology and the Bible

Perpetual Virginity | Theological Word of the Day

* About
* Subscribe
* Home

Perpetual Virginity
Date July 23, 2008

The belief among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, never having sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ. Most Protestants object to this doctrine believing that the Bible teaches that Mary had other children and that this doctrine arose out of a philosophical disdain for the act of sex adopted by the early church. Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli both accepted the doctrine believing it to be non-essential, while John Calvin rejected it. Despite its lack of biblical support, it does find substantial support throughout church history.

Immaculate Conception | Theological Word of the Day

Immaculate Conception | Theological Word of the Day

Immaculate Conception
Date July 22, 2008

The belief among Roman Catholics that Mary was conceived without original sin. Though not taught in the Scripture, Roman Catholics believe that this doctrine is a theological necessity in order for Christ to be born without the stain of sin. Protestants reject this doctrine citing insufficient biblical support. As well, Protestants would argue that the theological reasoning is problematic sense Mary’s mother would have to be born without sin to protect Mary, and this would continue all the way back to the first woman. This doctrine was dogmatized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1854 in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX.

White Board sessions

Google Reader (181)

I found some of the comments here very striking and a few very funny.

I deliberately didn't immediately review last week's White Board Sessions conference (TheWhiteBoardSessions.com) so that I could think a bit about what I saw. Here are a couple of notable quotes from a few of the speakers -- you judge whether they're good or bad:

Mark Batterson:
1) "Systematic theology is an oxymoron."
2) "Your dreams are too small and it breaks the heart of God."
3) "Memory too often overtakes imagination."
4) "We expend too much sideways energy fighting with each other over trivial things."
5) "I'd rather have one God idea than 1,000 good ideas."

Vince Antonucci
1) "Jesus' heartbeat is for the lost and we're reaching the saved."
2) "Are you using the kind of hook and bait so that fish don't swim away?"
3) "Do the most messed up people want to hang out with you like they wanted to with Jesus?"

Tim Stevens
1) "How many people visit and find your church uncomfortable?"
2) "If Christ were here today he would try to leverage the culture and study the internet."

Mark Dever
1) "We don't pay staff to emotionally manipulate people to attend a weeknight meeting."
2) "Personal relationships are not at war with propositional truths."
3) "Imagine if churches began to talk about quality the way we talk about quantity."
4) "God must laugh at us when we discover something that 'works.'"

Perry Noble
1) " God is not green. Kermit is green. It will be a cold day ....... when I preach on recycling and not the gospel."
2) "You admit [preacher] that you love Jesus, just not the people who claim to love Jesus."

Ed Stetzer (the last speaker)
1) For most here today ministry won't look like what we have heard today. Conferences are like ministry pornography -- a picture of something we'll never have."

Fresh out of college I was in the management trainee program at Ford Motor Credit Company and required to take Dale Carnegie training. The White Board Sessions reminded me a lot of that training.

-"My dreams are too small."
-"Baite and hook."
-"Meet people where they're at."

With a few notable exceptions (Mark Dever and Darrin Patrick) the meeting was Carnegie dressed in jeans with a twist of Jesus. Not bad. But it struck me as more management and marketing (horizontal) than it did biblical and relational (vertical). In that sense the White Board Sessions were boring. I felt like I was watching a very familiar movie only dressed up in technology and labeled as "new" and "cutting edge." Glad I went? Yep. Glad I do what I do through 9Marks? Double yep!

Fundamentalism and Separation

Found the dialogue on 9Marks very helpful. Interesting too.