BOOK REVIEW - "A CLEAR AND PRESENT WORD: THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE" BY MARK D. THOMPSON

Am I the only person who smiled when they saw this book title, thinking of the phrase as well as the title of a Tom Clancy novel and its theatrical adaptation? I haven't read the book or seen the film (might when I think of it), but I think I can say for certain there's no connection.

In "A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture" Mark Thompson presents a doctrine that I never had heard of before by name but have held to and agree with the author concerning its importance. The clarity of Scripture means that, in spite of figurative language and differing interpretations, a born-again believer can understand what Scripture means, as opposed to being dependent on an authority telling you what it means and expecting you to accept them as the final word.

This book is part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology by Intervarsity Press. I have heard "Biblical Theology" to refer to both studying what each book/human author teaches regarding a specific doctrine and to looking at the overarching story-line of God's Redemption from Genesis to Revelation. (In either case, it's in contrast to Systematic Theology, where you focus on the doctrine and how it appears in Scripture.) The books in this series takes the former approach. 

However, I can argue if this fits the pattern. The first chapter looks at objections to the concept of Biblical clarity, both historic (particularly the Catholic/Protestant divide at the Reformation) and contemporary (via the Post-modern movement). Chapter 2 looks at God communicating with man. If you skip a chapter, chapter 4 takes a needed look at the field of hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation), while the fifth and final chapter looks at two Reformation era debates (Luther vs. Erasmus, Bellarmino vs. Whitaker) before dealing with the current application of this. Biblical Theology is primarily evident in the third chapter, particularly focusing on Jesus' and the Apostles' view of the clarity of Scripture in the old Testament.

These books in this series tend to be academic, and I'll confess I find myself skimming through some of the volumes. Not this one. This was worth the careful plodding. The result is that my views have been confirmed about the clarity of Scripture, and I highly recommend it.

BOOK REVIEW - FORGED FROM REFORMATION: HOW DISPENSATIONAL THOUGHT ADVANCES THE REFORMATION LEGACY, EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CONE & JAMES I. FAZIO

 

Is Historic Reformed Theology compatible with Dispensationalism? Could an allegorical hermeneutic be the reason for the Dark Ages, and a literal historical/grammatical hermeneutic likewise been a foundation Luther and Calvin built their theology on? Was it possible that John Nelson Darby, considered the father of Dispensationalism, could be considered a Reformer?

Forged From Reformation: How Dispensational Thought Advances the Reformed Legacy, is a collaboration of fifteen authors, edited by Christopher Cone and James I. Fazio. Published in 2017 with the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in their mind, they look at the accomplishments of Luther and Calvin, and how the contributions of Dispensationalists like Darby, Scofield, and Ryrie have continued down the path the Reformers began.

Following a forward by Michael Vlach and an introduction by the editors - including a chapter by chapter synopsis of this book - is the first major section (chapters 2-7), which looks at the Historical Development, both of the Reformation and of the origins of Dispensationalism. Included in this section:

• A commentary of Luther's 95 Theses by Patrick Belvil, pointing out how Luther uses a more literal method of interpretation than was used during the Medieval times;
• A comparison of Martin Luther and John Nelson Darby by Cory M. Marsh; and 
• A history of how anti-Semitism crept into the church, fueled by an allegorical interpretation of prophecy, poisoning Martin Luther view of Israel, co-written by Marsh and Brian Moulton.

The following ten chapters focuses on how Dispensationalism strengthens the Five Solas. While it would be logical to conclude that each sola is covered in two chapters, it should not be a surprise that due to the focus on hermeneutics, Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone) is given five of the ten chapters, with Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Solus Christus (respectively Grace, Faith, and In Christ Alone) get one chapter each, and the section concluded with a pair of contributions on Soli Deo Gloria (For the Glory of God Alone). Co-editor Christopher Cone concludes this compilation with a reminder that any Reform movement is imperfect and thus incomplete, and we should be always reforming.

This is an excellent book for a pastor or a Bible student. It is intellectual but plain enough for a layman to understand. Not surprisingly with the layout of the book (specifically five chapters on Scripture) and the number of authors that there is a good bit of repetition. While the authors all make a case for dispensationalism, I would say for one to understand dispensationalism better they should read Michael Vlach's Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths.

Permit me one criticism of this book. I read a book on the Church Fathers where the author points out the two schools of interpretation: Alexandria, which was more allegorical, including Origen; and Antioch, more literal, represented by John Chrysostom. Forged From Dispensationalism as a whole points to Alexandrian allegory to contribute to the Dark Ages and Anti-Semitism, including Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but makes no mention of Chrysostom or any other Antiochene interpreter. The chapter dealing with Anti-Semitism suggests that while not all allegorists are anti-semitic, no literal interpretter of Scripture is. Chrysostom, though, was no less anti-semitic than Origen or Luther. Okay, I've got that off my chest.

This is a good book to have in your private library. I recommend it.

BOOK REVIEW - DISPENSATIONALISM: ESSENTIAL BELIEFS AND COMMON MYTHS BY MICHAEL J. VLACH

 

 One of the saddest moments of my life - my wife and I were talking to a Christian friend and mentioned a certain Dispensationalist teacher. That friend went into a diatribe that bordered on hatred, and it definitely made accusations that we knew weren't true.

I find the best way to know a view is to hear what the proponents of the view say, and then read the critiques and judge if they're accurately portraying the proponent's view. Dispensationalism is one such controversial topic, and this book does an excellent job in giving it.

Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by Michael J. Vlach, does what is promised. He gives a list of what all dispensationalists believe and deals with common misconceptions (most of which are based on either poorly worded statements from Dispensationalists or misunderstanding, though there's a few accusations that border on slander.

One thing that Vlach deals with is that Dispensationalism is limited in the doctrines it affects, namely ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) and eschatology (doctrine of end times). He also recognizes that Dispensationalism is known as a doctrine of discontinuity (i.e. how the Old and New Testament differ) and then points out where Dispensationalists hold to continuity between the two Testaments.

This is a short book (just barely over 100 pages), because it has a specific purpose - dealing with what dispensationism is and what it isn't. This is not a book designed to convert people to dispensationalism or to win arguments; it is more of a defense against the attacks on that view. It definitely points out that Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians agree that salvation from Adam on has always been by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I did find some things that weren't covered. I've noticed that some of the arguments against dispensationalism are based on  the gifts of the Spirit, though Vlach would probably point out that there are continuist as well as cessasionist dispensationalists. Vlach also doesn't mention Pauline Dispensationalism (which teaches that Paul is the New Testament writer dealing with the church and thus focus his teachings, nor acknowledge that all Dispensationalsist don't see the church at Pentecost (for example, Les Feldick who was an Acts 9 Pauline Dispensationalist. These items, however, aren't necessary for what Vlach is focused on in this volume.

This is an excellent introduction to dispensationalism.

BOOK REVIEW - A PRIMER ON BIBLICAL LITERACY BY CORY M. MARSH

 

 What does it mean to be Biblically Literate? Should it be considered a rarity when there are "bumper sticker" Scriptures taken out of context or those who identify as Christians can't name most of the Ten Commandments or the four Gospels?

A Primer on Biblical Literacy by Cory Marsh is an excellent little book dealing with the subject of Biblical literacy (as you probably suspected by the title). I called it a little book - it composes of three chapters, and doesn't reach the triple digits in page length when the appendices start.

The first chapter focuses on the need for Biblical Literacy by reminding us of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite, showing extreme examples on what happens when people don't know the Bible and challenge those who teach something contrary to Scripture. The second chapter defines Biblical  Literacy as developing an awareness of God through Scripture and a proficiency in understanding the meaning of the Biblical text. The final and longest chapter is an introduction to hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation). 

The appendices includes the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. One of my classes my first semester at Bible College was "Doctrine of Scripture and God," and the professor (Dr. David Nicholas) was off for a week to take part in signing this document. This is the first time I had the privilege of reading it.

I highly recommend this book. I found it an encouragement to get to know the Word of God - and thus, the God of the Word - better.

EVEN CHURCH FATHERS CAN BE CONTROVERSIAL - A LOOK AT ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA

 

 

Have you ever heard that there are many ways to interpret the Bible, almost implying that there's no way of knowing what it really means?

This is the halfway point in my 13 installment look at the Church Fathers, using Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction as a guide. Today's subject is Origen. I was about to write "Today's saint," but Origen (like Tertullian) was never canonized. 

I believe I've mentioned in another blog (possibly the one I did for All Saints Day a couple of months ago) that I take the typical Biblicist view of sainthood, which is that all believers are saints. (In all except one of his letters to the churches, Paul addresses the recipients as being saints, including the carnal Corinthians; the exception was the Galatians, where they were on the verge of following "another gospel.") With that definition, I definitely consider Origen a saint (and the same for Tertullian, but you might remember me referring to that a couple of days ago).

Why do I unhesitatingly consider him a saint? Two reasons. He clearly loved the Lord, and he loved the church. He got carried away in trying to live out the passage of being a eunuch for God's sake (which he later realized was unwise), and lived a life of self-sacrifice which weakened him physically. He also taught others the Gospel during a time of severe persecution, and when his students were arrested, Origen risked his freedom visiting them in prison and shouting encouragement to them when they faced martyrdom (which Origen later did as well).

Some of you may not have known this about Origen. Those who are familiar with him probably associate him first of all with his allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Those who know my life story are aware I went to a Bible college that emphasized a literal interpretation of Scripture, and view symbolizing Scripture with wariness, afraid the interpreter will use that hermeneutic to justify any fanciful thing he would think of. On the other hand, though, is there an equally dangerous extreme of plain sense interpretation, where we believe that an unbeliever is able to read Scripture and understand what it means?

First of all, Origen believed the Bible was Spiritual, and thus there was more to it than the historical/literal words (which Origen did not reject). Also, being aware of the danger I mentioned above, he established three safeguards against his allegories taking us to la la land. They are:

1. The Catholic Church's Rule of Faith. The Rule of Faith is the precursor to the Apostle's Creed, and Origen was in agreement with other church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian concerning what it taught.
2. The nature of Scripture. Origen believed Scripture was both about Christ and from Him. See John 5:39. If you've heard some say that Jesus is on every page of the Bible, you're repeating a concept that may have originated with Origen.
   
3. The upright character of the interpreter. To understand Scripture requires a pure heart. Godly maturity and wisdom prevent going into error.

Origen was definitely considered a Biblical scholar. His allegorical approach was not due to a lack of respect for Scripture but rather the opposite. Is it possible that, as Festus taunted Paul, that much learning made him mad? Should we be skeptical of Christian intellectuals and academians? Or are we going the other direction and promoting anti-intellectualism? 

There are ideas that Origen came up with which weren't completely orthodox. For example, he believed that Satan would eventually repent, and that our resurrection bodies won't be physical, neither view being accepted by the mainstream church. But anybody who's familiar with Pilgrim's Progress or the Chronicles of Narnia realize symbolism and story can effectively communicate truth.