Sometimes, I take my quotes from emails or other conversations that I do not reveal here. Such is the case with this post.
The scriptures are alive - Holy Spirit speaks through them. Let them speak to YOU! Christ is our Mediator - through Him, I can approach the Throne boldly. It doesn't get more plain than that. You simply cannot explain it away and make it harder than it is.
And what does the Holy Spirit say to you? The Holy Spirit was sent to us by God to bear witness to Jesus Christ and His redeeming work on the Cross. The Holy Spirit is present whenever I hear the Word of God preached correctly or receive the Sacraments. What is different about that for you? Isn’t it interesting how it is me who does not make this plain? What makes this hard is these convoluted presuppositions that you bring to the text. Perspicuity of the text is on one side or the other. Let’s see which side that might be.
My first and most basic assertion is that proof texting is dangerous. Taking verses out of context is dangerous. Reading whole sections and whole letters is important. That is what makes the Bible plain, not some amorphous rush of endorphins and adrenaline while I’m reading. There is a metanarrative that runs from Genesis through Revelations, and that story is the redemptive work of Christ. That is the prism through which all verses should be viewed.
The Holy Spirit came and gave specific apostolic office to the twelve in the upper chamber, with the later addition of Paul, and that was to witness to the resurrected Christ. That is the thumbnail of Acts 2. It could not be more plain. Let’s look at what some have said about Acts 2. Perhaps then, you will understand what it does say. Then we can view Ephesians 3 again, with a bit more perspective.
A few words on the versions of the Bible. There are two basic philosophies in Bible translation. There is the Word for Word translation and the Thought for Thought translation. The ESV that I use is more on the Word for Word end of the spectrum, while the NIV is more on the Thought for Thought end of the spectrum. The main criticism of Word for Word translations is that it requires more work. With the ESV, for instance, there is a necessary need to do word studies and then to read and do research on the metanarrative to understand the context of the usage of a particular word. With the NIV, for instance, there is a group of theologians who do this work for you. The problem with the ESV is that it requires more work. The problem with the NIV is that you are allowing someone to do this work for you. What if they have an agenda?
BTW, all of us have a point of view. All of us have an agenda. This is why I prefer the ESV. Any church can use the ESV and apply whatever spin that they would prefer. The NIV is giving you a spin, whether or not it fits your Biblical paradigm. The work of learning the words and the use of those words is the work of understanding scripture. When words are changed to clarify meaning, the question becomes does this meaning really reflect the words? We can’t tell any longer if the words have been changed. This is the reason to use a Word for Word translation over a Thought for Thought translation.
So who edits the NIV? It is a who’s who of American Evangelical seminaries. This is one of the major problems with the NIV. There is clearly an agenda at play here. There are a few representatives of the more conservative seminaries on the panel, but with Dallas and Wheaton represented multiple times, this speaks volumes. I have done the word study on Propitiation for you in the past, and in it, I point out some of the problems of the NIV and how interpretation can sanitize some of the richness of the language and therefore some of the depth of meaning from the very doctrines of our faith.
Acts 2 is dealt with on the latest episode of the WHI, which I posted earlier today. The main issue here is that the sermon of Peter is a great example of how to preach. Is this what you hear on Sunday? It is not what I hear on Sunday, far from it. Peter appeals to Old Testament Scripture and to events of which all who were present were aware, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter shows through scripture how Jesus fulfilled this prophesy. This is the model for preaching.
Hal Lindsey and others would have you believe that this is a reference to the book of Revelations and that this whole passage is yet unfulfilled. Peter, in no uncertain terms, is telling you that Joel 2:28-32 has just occurred. The worldly events happened at the death of Jesus Luke 23:44-45, Mark 15:33-39, Matthew 27:45-56. Now, the Holy Spirit coming to the sons and daughters happened in the upper room on Pentecost, at which time there were both men and women present Acts 1:14. In other words, Peter is telling us that this particular prophesy is fulfilled. This is the same prophesy mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians, but that is for another conversation.
And finally, taking the last bit first, how exactly are the scriptures alive? The Canon was closed upon the death of the last Apostle, John, in about A.D. 120. Scripture has a couple of criteria; the first of which is that it must have come from either the inner circle of 12, or someone who had direct contact with that inner circle (such as Luke and Paul.) John lived a long life, but not 2000 years. The Canon is closed. The last Old Covenant prophet was John the Baptist and the last New Covenant prophet was John the Apostle. What happens when the Word is preached correctly is that the Holy Spirit moves people to understand and believe the truth. This is not to say that the scripture is altered or amended in any way. There is no section of scripture called the Amendments. Scripture is the infallible, eternal Word of God. It does not change.
Now in Ephesians 3, we have a passage in which Paul is assuring the Gentiles that we do indeed inherit the kingdom, even when Paul dies, as Paul was in jail in Rome when he wrote Ephesians. I understand this verse to mean that through Christ I may face Judgment with boldness, because I have access to the New Covenant mediator through my faith in Christ Jesus. It is pretty straight forward. Paul has just mentioned how the hosts of heaven are made aware of the overarching plans of God by the revelation of the church on earth. Then he reminds the Gentiles that they are part of that church and that they too have access to the promise.
And so at long last, I come to the original question, one which was flippantly answered with the quote above. What does Ephesians 3:12 mean to you? It was your verse that was plucked out of context and given who knows what meaning by you. That is why I asked the question. As I have shown, the plain meaning does not seem to dovetail with your comment, so I ask again. What does Ephesians 3:12 mean to you? In all of our conversation, there is this undercurrent of accusation that this is just my interpretation versus your interpretation. That is not the case. I am trying to represent an orthodox reformed position. I do not believe that the Scripture changes depending on the reader. My position is shared by millions over the last two millennia. I’m fighting against the various liberal positions in the church today that erode the very foundations of our faith.
No, this has not been a tender and loving letter. Once again, I perceived an air of frustration in you. I, too, have been frustrated. I think it is important to tell us why you chose that verse or any verse that you post. What are you doing with (or to) that verse. These are the reasons for my frustration. No, I am not making it harder than it is. I’m just asking the questions that you should be asking.
--Ogre--
No comments:
Post a Comment