How a Pagan Philosopher Came to Believe the Scriptures Are from God
Written by Michael J. Kruger |
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
The Reformers…believed the truth of Scripture could be ascertained, by the help of the Holy Spirit, from the Scriptures themselves. This is what they meant when they said the Scriptures were self-authenticating. Such a reality should come as no surprise. After all Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27).
It probably comes as no surprise that the most common question I receive from both Christians and non-Christians is “How do I know the Bible is the Word of God?” And the reason this question is at the top of the list is not hard to determine. The authority of the Bible is the foundation for everything that we believe as Christians. It is the source of our doctrine and our ethics. Thus, we need to be able to answer this question when asked.
Let me say from the outset that there is not just one answer to this question. I think there are many ways that Christians can come to know the Scriptures are from God. God can certainly use historical evidences to convince us of the truth of his Word (though it is important to understand the limitations of evidence). And God can use the testimony of the church to convince us of the truth of his Word (I cover the details of this in my book Canon Revisited).
But, it is noteworthy that throughout the history of the church many Christians have ascertained the divine origins of the Bible in yet another way: they read it. Rather than being persuaded through a deep dive into the historical evidences, many have come to believe the Bible is from God by observing its distinctive character and power.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Is Paedocommunion Biblical?
The Achilles’ heel of the argument for paedocommunion, however, is the teaching of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. In this passage, the Apostle addresses a particular problem in the Corinthian church and offers general guidelines regarding what is required of those who receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. After describing the divisive and unholy conduct of some of the Corinthians (vv. 17–22), the Apostle recalls the Lord’s institution of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23–26) and thereafter provides instructions regarding a proper preparation for and partaking of Christ by faith in the sacrament (vv. 27–29).
Since the sixteenth century, Reformed and Presbyterian churches have not permitted baptized children of believing parents to partake of the Lord’s Supper without previously professing their faith (see Heidelberg Catechism 81; Belgic Confession, Art. 35; Westminster Larger Catechism 177). However, in recent decades, many Reformed denominations have had to respond to advocates of paedocommunion (“child communion”) who have vigorously challenged this consensus.
According to advocates of paedocommunion, the traditional practice of Reformed churches represents a departure from the historic practice of the Christian church. More importantly, paedocommunionists insist that the historic position of the Reformed churches is inconsistent with their doctrine of the covenant. Since the children of believers are members of the covenant community or visible church, they should be admitted to the Lord’s Table to be nourished in the faith and in fellowship with Jesus Christ.
The historical argument for paedocommunion is at best inconclusive. Unlike the significant evidence for the practice of infant baptism in the early church, there is no compelling evidence for the practice of paedocommunion. Though the Eastern church practices paedocommunion to the present day, there is no mention of this practice in the voluminous writings of the early church fathers. In the early third century, Origen expressly stated that children were not given holy communion.1
Whatever the historical evidence for paedocommunion suggests, the more fundamental question is, What do the Scriptures teach about the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper?
Advocates of paedocommunion often appeal to the Old Testament Passover Feast as a precedent for the admission of covenant children to the Lord’s Supper. Just as covenant children participated in this annual feast and in other covenant meals under the Old Testament economy, so they should be welcomed to participate in the new covenant meal, the Lord’s Supper.
Although the appeal to the analogy of the Passover is a key component of the argument for paedocommunion, it has several significant problems. First, the Deuteronomic instructions regarding the Passover require only males to celebrate this feast annually in the place where the Lord has chosen to place His name (Deut. 16:1–8, 16).
Read More
Related Posts: -
Spotlight on Preaching
If done right, preaching never produces a conscious moment of being in the spotlight. But it will put the spotlight where it belongs – on Him whom we preach. And in gazing upon that spotlighted figure, those to whom we preach will be bettered, and helped, and encouraged, and enabled to persevere, forgive, repent, serve, and worship. And the one who preached will back up into the shadows where he belongs and be thankful.
I recently read a quote by a man who spends a lot of time leading leaders. He has a great number of followers and I have no doubt that a great number of church leaders have been helped by what he has to say. He made this quote earlier this week – “Another way to take the pressure off yourself and help your church experience consistently strong preaching is to share the spotlight: develop a team approach to preaching…The best way to break the chains of insecurity is to share the spotlight with someone more gifted than you. So share the spotlight. It will do you and your church more good than you realize.”
Well, allow an Are Not to comment.
It is good advice for a pastor to share the preaching ministry in his church. It is almost a complete misunderstanding of the ministry of preaching to call it the “spotlight”.
There is no doubt that there are spotlight aspects to preaching. There are those who, after a message, will thank the preacher, pat him on the back, say how meaningful the message was to them. While preaching, the preacher is the centre of attention, the centre of most of the congregation’s attention, the one who appears on the screen and seems to be the only one in the room. In some churches the preacher has an actual spotlight shining on him. But a man whose work includes the regular preaching of the Word of God and who thinks that one of the reasons he should let other people preach from time to time is so that they can share in the spotlight does not truly understand what preaching is. Having a team approach to the preaching of the Scriptures may be a good thing if there are those in the church who are gifted for it and can be properly trained. But putting them into the pulpit so that the spotlight can be shared is about as far away from a legitimate reason to preach as possible.
Real preaching is pastoral. I have the privilege of preaching in different churches and it truly is a great honour. I believe that if I can preach to strangers in any effective manner, it is because I have been trained to do so through preaching to people I pastored and shared life with. Really effective preaching takes place by a man who is part of the church in which he preaches, and he is preaching to people he knows. He is preaching to people he has visited, prayed with, prayed for. He knows that when he goes into the pulpit there are sitting in front of him people who are overcome with all kinds of problems. There are parents agonizing over the life choices of their children.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Pastoral Fatherhood: Understanding the Pastor as a Paternal Example
The domains of the church and home overlap uniquely in the pastoral office, such that a pastor functions as a paternal example for the people of God. When the OT themes of fatherly leadership are sustained through Paul’s emphasis on pastoral fatherhood (yet cautioned with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23), it becomes clear that the pastor is a representative father figure in the church family. As such, he demonstrates for God’s people what parenthood ought to be, both in his home and in the church. Indeed, the magisterial domains of home and church overlap in this one office.
In 1999, evolutionary paleontologist and Harvard University professor Dr. Stephen Jay Gould coined the phrase “non-overlapping magisteria” to describe the relationship between science and religion. He aimed to show that science and religion are miles apart because they deal with different realms or, “domains of magisterial (teaching) authority.” This article will not debate Gould’s thesis, but will use his taxonomy of magisterial domains as an analogy. The home and the church are two primary domains of spiritual teaching authority in the Scriptures. As such, one must ask, “Do these magisteria overlap? And if so, how?” The definitive answer of this essay, of complementarian theology, and of the Bible, is “absolutely.”
This essay will argue that the magisterial domains of the church and home overlap uniquely in the pastoral office, such that a pastor functions as a paternal example for the people of God.[1] To make this argument, key biblical texts will be explored that depict the pastor in paternal terms, with one “problem text” discussed along the way. After surveying the biblical data, a theological sketch will be given to underpin an evangelical understanding of pastoral fatherhood in the church family. Finally, the practical impact of pastoral fatherhood will be discussed, demonstrating both the positive and negative implications.[2]
Biblical Overview
Throughout the Old Testament, various leaders are given for God’s people. Prophets, priests, kings, sages, and community elders all exercise authoritative roles in the history of Israel, and each of these ministries are depicted in fatherly terms.[3] These paternal patterns in the OT then develop into a motif in the New Testament. Jesus Christ comes as the Son from the Father. His apostolic disciples, on whose testimony the church is built, are twelve men. These men plant churches, who appoint male elders to exercise oversight. But, perhaps the most vivid ecclesial representations of this motif are found in Paul’s ministry and teachings.
First, Paul regularly describes himself as father to individuals — to Timothy (1 Cor 4:7, Phil 2:22, 1 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2), to Titus (Titus 1:4), and to Onesimus (Philem 12).[4] Lest one surmise this is only an individual-to-individual phenomenon, Paul also describes himself as a father figure to entire churches (1 Cor 4:14–17 and 1 Thess 2:7–12 are the most direct references).[5] This last reference is of particular import because, in this instance, we see that it is not only an apostolic ministry of Paul’s; co-writers Silvanus and Timothy are also included in the collective “we” who related to the Thessalonian church as parents to children. Thus, in the apostolic ministry of Paul and the delegated ministry of his followers, parenthood was a regular metaphor for church leadership.
Second, this example from Paul is only deepened with his teachings on pastoral ministry in the Pastoral Epistles, specifically in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. One of the key qualifications for a pastor is that he “manage his household well . . .for [if not] . . . how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim 3:4–5). This sentiment is repeated in Titus 1, where the children of overseers are not to be insubordinate (Titus 1:6). The logic of these qualifications is straightforward: If a man cannot parent at home, he cannot “parent” at church. The work is similar in both magisterial domains.[6] By linking the pastor’s qualification for church office to his parenthood in the home, Paul overlaps the magisterial domains of the church and home directly in the office of the pastor.
How does this relate to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9, “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven?”
Various interpretations of Matthew 23:9 have been suggested. The verse could be taken as a direct and wooden prohibition, wherein Jesus’ disciples should not treat any other man as a father, period. The problem with this interpretation is the Bible’s blessing elsewhere of natural fatherhood. Jesus’ other teachings in texts like Luke 11:11–13, where Jesus recognizes natural father-child relationships, give a common-sense rebuttal to this wooden and literal interpretation. Some commentators argue instead that Matthew 23:9 is hyperbolic.
Read More
Related Posts: