God is at work through Loyal Heart Ministries. We are scheduling conferences for the Fall and greatly anticipate being at churches like Northwest Baptist Church in Oklahoma City as well as Crosspoint Church in Millington, TN. We continue to work out scheduling details with multiple churches around the country.

Why would a church host a LHM conference?

1.      We help the church make disciples by Training their Teachers to:

1. expositionally study and teach the Word.
2. use Loyal Heart Ministries’ Theology Driven Curriculum.
3. help their students examine their lives by the Scripture.
4. apply the Word under one of four core competencies:

Biblical Thinking: Gain the knowledge and skill necessary to pursue a vital Christian life that glorifies God.
Biblical Living:  Understand and apply biblical principles to all areas of life.
Biblical Relating: Nurture relationships that reflect the supremacy of Christ through marriage, family, church, and community investments.
Biblical Proclaiming: Develop a proficient and passionate witness manifest in all personal relationships, life activities, and vocational endeavors.

2.       We help the church make disciples by Providing Resources including:

1. Curriculum that is fully underwritten by men and women who desire to invest LHM’s quality Bible study tools in local churches.
2. Weekly men’s, women’s and student devotions that are fully underwritten by men and women who desire to invest LHM’s Bible study tools in local churches.
3. Personal consulting for church leaders in the area of recruiting and training leaders, conflict resolution, small group/Sunday school organization, etc.

 Why does LHM provide curriculum to churches at no cost?

We believe that the dollar should never be a wall between believers and excellent Bible study resources. An army of men and woman hold this same belief and support the ministry of LHM in order that we may offer our curriculum to churches at no cost. We only ask that the curriculum savings from each church be invested in one of their High School students to go on the international mission field.

Consider how Loyal Heart Ministries might serve your church today. We desire to help your church make disciples. Contact us today: http://www.loyalheartministries.com/

 Definition

Hermeneutics is the science and art of biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is regulated by rules within an organized system. It is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, not by mechanical interpretation (Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation).

“. . . that science which delineates principles or methods for interpreting an individual author’s meaning.” (Osborne). Osborne notes that current trends in Hermeneutics are to ignore the original intent and move straight to present meaning.

Major Thesis

Biblical interpretation entails a spiral from text to context, from its original meaning to its contextualization or significance for the church today. It spirals from the original intended meaning to the level of contextualization that is significant for application. The goal of interpretation is not the commentary but the sermon.

The Ten Stages of Interpretation (Meaning-Significance)

He notes ten steps of biblical interpretation, the first five are inductive in nature and the second five are deductive in nature.

Stage 1: Context

            The historical context is examined in order to determine the situation to which the book was addressed. The logical context is examined in order to determine the thought development within the book. Osborne notes these two examinations allow him to critically assess the commentaries.

Stage 2: Chart

            The first step is to skim the paragraphs and summarize as you read. Second, return to the text and look for patterns of thought (clues: repeated words or phrases, transitional conjunctions or adverbs, a rhetorical question, a change in time, location, or setting, a shift in attention, a change in tense, mood, or aspect of a verb, repetition of the same key word, head of a section). The third step is to subdivide the section into major units. Osborne notes that in order to study parts one must diagram.

Stage 3: Grammatical Study

            Grammar denotes the basic laws of language behind the relationship between the terms in the surface structure. Osborne notes the criteria in grammatical studies of the text. External criteria includes rules which relate to the document (relative dates, temporal and geographical distribution, genealogical relationship, quality of the manuscripts). Internal criteria includes rules relating to the construction and inner clarity of the text itself (the more difficult reading is more likely, reading that best fits the author’s style).

Stage 4: Semantical Study

            Some semantic fallacies are:

1. The lexical fallacy: word studies can settle the issue.
2. The root fallacy: the root of the term carries the basic meaning in every subordinate word.
3. Misuse of Etymology: assume the key to the word’s meaning is in its origin and history.
4. Misuse of Subsequent Meaning: later meanings read back into the biblical material.
5. The One-Meaning Fallacy: assume that every appearance of a Hebrew or Greek term should be translated by the same English word.
6. Misuse of Parallels: searching for parallels that are only favorable to the author’s thesis.
7. The Disjunctive Fallacy: data presented in such a way that the reader is mislead by an either/or scenario.
8. The Word Fallacy: failure to consider the use of synonyms.
9. Ignoring the Context: often found when one relies on a word-by-word commentary.

Basic semantics keeps in mind that words do not carry meaning by themselves. Meaning is derived from its context. The literary context notes the linguistic environment. Situational context involves reconstructing the historical situation behind the passage.

Stage 5: Syntactical Study

            The term syntax has both a narrow and a broad meaning. The narrow meaning refers to the relationship between the words of a sentence and is virtually equivalent to grammar. The broad meaning refers to all the interrelationships within the sentence as a means of determining the meaning of the unit as a whole. The purpose of syntax is to elucidate the thought development and meaning of the whole statement of a passage of Scripture.

Performative language describes what actually happens. Emotive language reveals the underlying emotions.

Figures of Speech

1. Figures of comparison:  metaphors, similes, etc.
2. Figures of addition: redundant synonyms, phonetically similar words, repetition, hyperbole, etc.
3. Incomplete figures of speech: ellipsis (requires reader to finish the thought), aposiopesis (portion of the sentence is omitted for emphasis).
4. Figures involving contrast and understatement (irony, euphemism, antithesis).
5. Figures centering on association or relation:
6. Figures stressing the personal dimension: personification, apostrophe.

Stage 6: Historical and Cultural Background

            Historical intentionality is when the author assumes certain shared information with the original readers. Literary intentionality is when the author encodes a message in the text. Osborne believes that the primary tool for uncovering this is archaeology. He list several sociological factors:

1. Geography
2. Politics
3. Economics
4. Military and War
5. Cultural Practices
   1. Family customs
   2. Material customs
   3. Everyday customs
   4. Athletics and recreation
   5. Music and art
6. Religious practices

Osborne notes that the task of the receptor in the modern cultural framework is to recapture the total framework within which the sacred writer communicated and to transfer that message to our own day.

Specific Sources for Background

1. Intertestamental Allusions: quotes from literature.
2. Qumran Parallels: similar in religious perspective with Christian communities.
3. Rabbinic Parallels:
4. Hellenistic Parallels:

Stage 7: Biblical Theology

            The branch of theology concerned with tracing themes through the diverse sections of the Bible and then with the unifying themes that draw the Bible together. This is the first step away from exegesis to determining the significance of the text for the church today. Three steps make up this plan:

1. Study theological themes in terms of individual books.
2. Explore the theology of the author.
3. Trace the progress of revelation that unites the testament or Bible as a whole

Methodology

1. The Synthetic Method: themes traced through the Bible in relation to various historical periods.
2. The Analytical Method: studies the primary theological emphasis of book.
3. The History of Religions Method: traces development of religious idea in Israel.
4. Diachronic Method: tradition of the church.
5. Christological Method: interprets Bible in light of Christ.
6. Confessional Method: looks at Bible as series of faith statements.
7. Multiplex Method: combines methods while minimizing weaknesses.

Stage 8: Historical Theology

            The branch of theology that traces the development of themes as well as how they were contextualized in each era of church history.

            In regards to exegesis it controls the interpretation of the text.

            In regards to biblical theology it shows the development throughout history.

            In regards to systematic theology it becomes a control of dogmatic conclusions.

Stage 9: Systematic Theology

            Influences

1. Scripture
2. Tradition: within each protestant group that influences interpretation.
3. Community: exercises control over tradition.
4. Experience
5. Philosophy: Helps theology reformulate biblical truths rationally and coherently in order to address the current situation.

Stage 10: Homiletics

            Contextualization: The process which interprets the significance of a religion or cultural norm for a group with a different cultural heritage.

            Principles

1. The contextualization must occur at the level of form rather than content.
2. The text itself sets the agenda and continually reforms the questions that the observer asks of it.
3. The receptor goes to the source to determine its meaning. The source then yields not only meaning but significance.
4. The key is to allow the dictates of Scripture to Challenge and then to transform the receptor culture.

From Text to Sermon

1. Study the original situation behind the message of the text.
2. Determine the underlying theological principle behind the text.
3. Meditate on the biblical and theological truth studied.
4. Discern parallels between the original situation addressed by the writer and the contemporary experiences of the Christian and the church.

 D. A. Carson presents a challenge to one of the greatest threats to the validity of evangelical preaching and the evangelical witness. He confronts the issue head on with an accurate accusation against the majority of people who presume to accurately handle the word of God. Carson refers back to the foundation of preaching and Bible teaching, which is the very thoughts of God. From this premise that is a running theme throughout the book, Carson builds his argument for a cogent and textually accurate presentation of the text. He withholds nothing in the means by which one must approach and study a selected passage of Scripture. He clarifies in his introduction that “A critical interpretation of Scripture is one that has adequate justification –lexical, grammatical, cultural, theological, historical, geographical, or other justification.” This definition serves as a foundational premise that is directly referred to throughout his examples of common fallacies within the exegetical process.

He notes the value of this study is discovered in exposing the multiplicity of exegetical fallacies, with the end goal of a more effective preacher in the matters of critical exegesis. This value is certainly portrayed throughout the work as the reader who is also regularly involved in exegesis will discover pitfalls within his own exegetical habits. Once these are recognized, which is another goal of Carson in this work, the practitioner is challenged to correct the fallacy and pursue a textually consistent exegesis.

It is within the scope of the humble to readily admit to cultural influences playing an all too often and crucial role in their exegetical process. Carson notes that the danger in the perpetual deficiency within the exegete is related to the issue of authority. With consistent and deviant practices of exegesis, particularly those related our tradition being inserted in our interpretation; Carson rightly notes that a transfer of authority from the Scripture to our tradition is a natural tendency that is easily undetected due to familiarity.

Keeping with the heart of scripture, which Carson views as the mission to transform lives, he implores the reader to constantly be on the look out and willing to change methodology of study in order to utilize the best resources available that will increase the level of certainty in the arena of biblical accuracy. This level of certainty is perhaps one the subsidiary thesis of this book, but is also a tremendous strength. Upon an initial reading of the fallacies one has a tendency to be reduced to skepticism about his own exegetical practices. However, following Carson’s encouragement to correct the fallacies in one’s own exegetical methods as they are realized, only serves to increase the level of certainty in achieving textual clarity.

A major issue facing evangelicalism arises early in the book. The issue of a lack of unanimity even among those who hold a high view of scripture has served as a deterrent to those whom are not of the same persuasion. Carson notes many areas in which the evangelical movement has diverged within its own ranks and posses the question of how this can be with all holding to the high view of Scripture. He seeks as a goal of this study for evangelicals to “move to greater unanimity on all kinds of doctrinal fronts” (19). This unanimity can be narrowed down to the goal of a unity of thought about the doctrines of Scripture.

It is unusual for an author to provide his own critical analysis of a study being presented. Carson does just a critique noting several dangers of this study of exegetical fallacies. The first danger is that of negativism, which can easily plague those who might use this book as a microscope under which to place all other exegetes. The second and most critical danger is that of distanciation. Distanciation develops when one spends too much time implementing critical analysis and too little time in heart felt devotion to the Lord. Even though this is a scholarly work that is academically accessible to any serious student of the Bible, Carson clarifies the danger of getting so immersed in the technical that the end goal of a clear revelation of Jesus Christ is missed.

The audience as stated above for this work is the serious interpreter of scripture who is not afraid to humble himself and admit faults, sometime serious faults that may have been practiced and taken as authoritative standards of study for years. Carson is concerned more about the weekly practitioner of exegetical work than anyone else. The writing quality is clear and understandable. Although some prior knowledge of technical analysis of the Scripture is helpful, it is not necessary for this work to be a vital component in developing the exegete.

Carson covers or better yet uncovers four primary areas in which the greatest exegetical fallacies most regularly occur. The four areas are Word study fallacies, Grammatical Fallacies, Logical Fallacies, and Presupposition and Historical Fallacies. Each section follows a similar pattern of sub-thesis related to the chapter’s major premise. Within each minor section, Carson uncovers the fallacies that are commonly accepted, practiced, and proclaimed to the church. The premise behind each section is to reveal the fallacies, dissect the reason why each fallacy occurs, and direct the reader to a proper understanding of how to correct the fallacious exegetical practices. 

In the first chapter he cautions against the assumption that may come from his revelation of the fallacy of word studies, that there is a freedom of word meaning choice. He notes that any word cannot just mean anything. He provides guidelines for overcoming the danger of the root meaning of a word, suggesting that meaning of a word may reflect component parts and not just the root. He further cautions against a leap to disregarding etymological studies which are helpful in the exegetical process but are not necessarily the favorable avenue for certainty of meaning.

Another fallacy occurs when a later use of a word is read back into the text. This semantic anachronism occurs when a word has gone through decades, or centuries of cultural development. The development is then ascertained as “the meaning” of the word in question. This developmental meaning is then reintroduced as the authoritative meaning of the text. He sites the use of the word dynamite in place of the word for power in the New Testament. Obviously the New Testament writer did not have the idea of dynamite when writing the text, thus an inaccurate exegetical process leads to an inaccurate proclamation and ultimately a total distortion of the text. The author cites that this is not just another form of the root fallacy, but an even greater leap away from the textual meaning. Carson refers to this fallacy as reverse etymology that starts with the current meaning of a word and assumingly applies that meaning to the text, thus inaccurately representing the original intended meaning.

Another word study fallacy takes place when an earlier meaning of a word is read into the text. The word may have gone through a developmental process before included in the revelation, but that process is not taken into consideration when exegeting the passage. Rather the “original” meaning of the word is inserted into the text, ignoring culture, linguistic changes, and authorial background in determining the contextual meaning. Carson gives the example of how the word martyr was used before, during, and after the biblical record was delivered. In various generations and cultural settings the word carried a fully different intent.

Perhaps one of the most prevalent exegetical fallacies committed today is the careless appeal to background material. Noting the use of the water and Spirit words in John 3:5, Carson unpacks an assault against the interpretations that would lead to a sacramental view of these words in relation to Christ’s body. He provides a clear linkage to the words original meaning as well as its developed intent to arrive at the meaning in the text. This section allows the reader to clearly see Carson’s model in action.

Carson moves next to the issue of Grammatical Fallacies on which he gives limited attention. His reason goes back to the audience for this book. He indicates that the bulk of the book is devoted to word fallacies due to the fact that most preachers have an ample supply of word study materials, which often lead to the fallacies, listed in the last chapter, but have limited resources which lead to grammatical fallacies. The first grammatical fallacy certainly relates more to the seminary student or particularly to the graduate who does not have the most recent resources. Due to the discovery of “papyrological” material some of the Greek studies have been refined, leaving other studies outdated. Those who have these outdated materials will find themselves unknowingly making grammatically fallacious mistakes. He follows with details on mistakes made in the use of Greek tenses and moods, and syntactical units. He concludes this chapter with an encouragement that the GRAMCORD computer retrieval system for grammatical construction will soon be out, thus enabling the practitioner to spend more time on the analysis of the material than on the gathering of the material.

His chapter on logic reveals much of the deviant practices in homiletics that build a theology on assumptions derived form basic axiomatic principles. Within the logical fallacies are allegory, formal disjunctions, failures to recognize distinctions, each of which often are the result of a leap from one truth to a theology that ignores other factors within the system of thought. An appeal to selected evidence is the result of a variance of a proof text method that robs the text of “fidelity.” Carson relates the disagreements in evangelicalism over the role of women in the church are a result of these logical fallacies.

The final fallacy relates to the presuppositionalism and history. The primary issue that serves as a foundation for these fallacies emerges from the new hermeneutic. Carson gives much attention to the dangers of the new hermeneutic and accurately links its effects to the fallacies of the chapter. With a wide margin for interpretive approaches to the text the new hermeneutic also allows a wide margin of error in interpreting the text. The argument for the proponent of the new hermeneutic undermine any thought of foundationalism in approaching the text, thus create an atmosphere of textual and interpretive uncertainty. This approach allows for creative license in reconstructing the first century community thus creating the fallacy of inaccurate contextual analysis. This leads to a fallacy that creates causes for events that are not foundational and thus faulty in their assumptions.

A concluding chapter pulls together a multiplicity of other primary fallacies, but fallacies that did not thematically fit under the primary chapter categories. Carson closes the book with a warning to those who practice such fallacies. The warning is that the end result is not just faulty preaching, but a faulty development of people. He encourages a humble approach to the text and a determination to discover the central truth, thus right dividing the word of God.

 Carl Raschke seeks to establish a polemic in favor of a postmodern reformation. It is not that he is asking for churches to go outside the bounds of the first reformation, but rather to embrace, what he perceives as the true principles and foundations of the first reformation. He develops his argument for today’s church to embrace the first reformation, but contends that true reformation principles are indeed postmodern in nature. Raschke proposes a threefold purpose for this book; namely, correct false analogies of postmodernism by proposing that it is essentially tied to the reformation; note how Christianity connected itself, with detrimental results, with Cartesian rationalism and British evidentialism, thus compromising the intent of the first reformation; and fundamentally to pursue  the goal of convincing those who have looked disjunctively at postmodernism to view it as an opportunity to perpetuate evangelical Christianity.

Raschke believes that the battle cry of the next reformation will be “by faith alone” and “by Scripture alone.” However, his understanding of the role of Scripture in reformation from history and for the next reformation, is not consistent with historical evangelical Christianity. Raschke vies for a more experiential approach to “Scripture alone” than most who hold to an evangelical view of Scripture.

Noting the current view of postmodernism, Raschke, correctly asserts, that the evangelical community believes postmodernism encourages nihilism, relativism, emotionalism, and irrationalism. He offers a condescending attack against Doug Groothuis for erroneously leading evangelicals to attack postmodern Christianity. Raschke disavows Groothius’ assertion that postmodern Christianity is a complete rejection of objective truth. Raschke uses a rhetoric of discrediting Groothius by stating that he made, “many of the same arguments against postmodernist that American and British philosophers had been making against the claims of Christianity for generations.” This pattern of diversion to other similar erroneous arguments is used throughout the book.

Raschke cites Graeme Codrington as a powerful defender of postmodern Christianity. He notes that Groothius’ model of rationalists acquirement of knowledge has failed and that postmodernists believe objective truth is attainable; they only question the ability to distinguish truth from non–truth. It is this indistinguishable truth that Raschke affirms as the motivation for believers to embrace postmodernism. Postmodernism’s basic premise is the attainment of truth by an encounter or experience with Christ, rather than by rationalistic means. He does however concede that subjective truth has propagated the gospel much more effectively than objective truth. He cites cases where many believers come to Christ, not by a reasonable argument in favor of objective, rational truth, but rather by the inner experience of wrestling with their sin and God’s offer of redemption.

His pattern of diversion continues as he notes the pharisaical manner of rationalizing God’s message, but it was Jesus pattern to speak in experiential parables. Raschke builds an argument for the form of ministry in Scripture to match the form of ministry today, but does not demonstrate a link between the different contexts of the here and now and Scripture. He argues that postmodernism is a term that simply defines the spirit of the times.

An attack is launched against foundationalism by tying it to empiricism and logical positivism. He defines foundationalism only from the perspective of its use of propositional statements and rational truth claims. The narrow definition leans on his premise that reformation truth is not asserted propositions, but rather gained through experience. He goes so far as describing this process of truth acquirement as synonymous with the reason for communism’s demise. He notes that the modernist approach failed in conjunction with foundationalism, because of its use of objective propositional truth.

Raschke describes what “really” happened during the reformation and notes that its current understanding among evangelicals is skewed, due to a belief that since postmodernism is inherently bad, the original reformation could not embrace any tenants thereof. He notes that Luther’s fundamental attack against the church was its claim that  priestly mediators and learned theologians were necessary to understand God’s will and word. From this “protestant principle,” Raschke notes three tenets of the reformation: Included are the notion that one cannot attain heaven without a personal belief in God; Scripture alone; priesthood of all believers. Raschke concludes from these tenents, “the singularity of personal belief and the sovereignty of individual conscience were construed almost exclusively as religious considerations during the sixteenth century” (26). Raschke argues that the issue of the priesthood of all believers is essentially a postmodern concept that was skewed by rationalism in the early seventeenth century. It is his perceived intention of the original reformation’s view of “the sovereignty of individual consciousness” that it is postmodern in nature and must be embraced by the church today in order to usher in the next reformation.

John Locke is presented as the one who led in the effort to elevate the original intention of the reformation by elevating the experiential nature of the intellect. Raschke states that Locke believed all human knowledge is founded in experience. It was not God’s account of miracles or the supernatural that allowed man to know Him, but rather the effect of such accounts on man. He notes that postmodernism contribution to this point in history was a demonstration of the detrimental direction that modernism was leading man. He, again, produces a distraction from the point by noting the manner in which the destruction of the Jerusalem temple served as a catalyst for Christianity. In like fashion, the postmodern destruction of reason and propositional truth acquirement serves as a catalyst for evangelicalism. It is in this challenge to seek such a catalyst, that Raschke spends the remainder of the book detailing the manner in which the next reformation will emerge from a return to the true principles of the first reformation.

The early chapters of this work outline the major philosophical influences of  two hundred years. Raschke reinterprets much of the contemporary understanding of philosophers, by indicating postmodernism is not a relatively recent concept, but is anchored in philosophical advancement from the past two centuries. He details the rise of many philosophical models that served as a means by which postmodernism could launch a staunch rejection.

Beginning with Kant’s sketch of the manner in which understanding is derived from prior subjective understanding; Raschke unfolds multiple philosophical advances that, once rejected after failure, catapulted a desire for postmodernism. He notes that Kant was not purporting relativism or placing truth in the hands of each individual, but affirmed the use of reason to make valid judgments and this ability is not from encounters with the universe, but rather are inherent in the human mind. Noting Kant’s use of “structure” and “foundation” as synonyms, Raschke highlights the postmodernist rejection of all forms of foundationalism.  He notes, “The grounding of faith in reason, however, empties faith of its content” (44).

Continuing his trace of historical imperatives that serve as a backdrop to postmodernism, Raschke provides a brief overview of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Derrida. In relation to Jacques Derrida’s contribution to postmodernism, he notes, “The philosophical trends now decipherable as postmodernism have rested on the premise that metaphysics must not be condoned, but must be “overcome” in order to contend with the inherent nihilism of the metaphysical enterprise itself” (48). Raschke believes that Luther’s call to “let God be God” is a postmodern summons to release the concept of God from reason.

He summarizes Nihilism and Deconstruction in an attempt to show their influences on postmodernism. Responding to Derrida’s statement that writing eliminates the meaning of what is written, Raschke emphasizes that deconstructionist shows the lack of a valid understanding of anything upon first impression. This understanding, according to Derrida, does not come from the words of the text, but rather from the individual’s encounter with the text. Up to this point, the reader seems to plow through a loosely organized series of class notes that are attempting to aim at a historical link to postmodernism, but find difficulty reaching their target.

Chapter three begins to unravel the confusion of the first two chapters and fulfill the promises contained in the thesis. Raschke  moves to the anti-rationalism of the current culture in America, indicating that this revolt is a major force behind resurgence in postmodern ideals. He notes that the resurgence within theological postmodernism had little to do with a resurgent evangelicalism, but rather was a reaction within liberalism against liberalism. He notes that Kant established the prelude to the next reformation as an effort “to remove knowledge in order to make room for belief” (75). The acquirement of knowledge at the dawn of postmodernism emphasized a rational, propositional approach to knowledge. Postmodernism sought to break away from such an approach thus making room for belief. According to Raschke, Kant believed that faith could be rational, but reason could not take the place of faith. So the goal began to emerge for the deliverance from propositional truth to truth that is communicated in by other means. Heidegger is noted as purporting that, “the syntax of language does not duplicate the structure of reality any more than a map reflects the territory” (80). Raschke assumes all this leads to a “snapshot approach to ultimate reality” through propositional logic that leaves one without substantive knowledge.

Noting the help of deconstructionists towards postmodernism, Raschke states, “Deconstruction was designed to eliminate the prepositional pipe fitting that, according to standard philosophy, links tow planes of reality, the verbal and the essential” (83). He believes that deconstruction eliminated the idea that language can produce the same effect on an individual as the experience. He indicates that in Paul’s letters, in which the value contained was not that of a treaty, but the value was in the inherent relational nature of the letters. According to Raschke, the value of the gospels is not in the words, but what one might say about the words and how they are applied in life.

Raschke proclaims the demise of modernism and all its tenets based in reason and objective rationality. He notes that we live in a “sensate culture” that will not be reformed by modernist attempts to communicate truth. Raschke perceives the failure of Protestantism is that it “only exchanged the Bible for the church as the source of authority. It did not alter the method of drawing implications from that authority” (93). He notes that Luther, Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, and others added experience as the primary means by which they communicated truth. Raschke believes their actions to eliminate Aristotelian rhetorical components from preaching were purely of a reformation nature. From these premises, Raschke notes that the next reformation will be about faith alone.

The subject matter returns to deconstructions influence on postmodernism. John Caputo believes that the true nature of the reformation is the essence of deconstructionism. He notes that deconstructionism is essentially “dehellenizing Christianity.” This act is grounded in the belief that God can not be known through rhetorical, propositional statements, but only through experiential faith. The reader does not have to wait for an answer to the question, “What about the emphasis on Scripture in the first reformation?” This is where his polemic in favor of his view of the first reformation comes to the surface. He notes that the reformation “adhered to the conviction that the Holy Spirit could guide each believer to a patent understanding of the meaning of Scripture” (117). So from the foundation of faith, the believer is afforded the opportunity to allow the word to speak to his heart. It is this encounter that Raschke contends was the heart of Luther’s reformation principles. He states, “They insisted that individual experience, as well as private interpretation of that experience, could be taken as authoritative, even at the expense of Scripture” (117). Raschke asserts that the reformation planted the seed for the postmodern hermeneutic that mediates the reality of God’s Word on an individual basis. He notes that God’s Word is true because it has been spoken to the individual.

He further notes the emphasis in the reformation and the postmodern movements is on faith alone rather than scripture alone. Raschke states, “Sola scriptura, therefore, emanates from the imperative of sola fide, not the other way around. Luther affirmed the ultimacy [sic] of scriptural authority because the Bible is the ‘literacy’ of the text that captures our understanding and lead us to the ‘truth’ of salvation, which is no proposition at all” (133). His assumption is that truth is founded in the essence of a relationship, and not in facts because facts are impersonal and have no real communicative value. He, weakly, concludes that if this assertion were not true then Jesus would have written a book instead of going to the cross. Raschke further states that Luther did not believe the truth of Scripture was propositional, but that the Scripture is true because of its relational nature. A relationship is established between this relational understanding of truth and Jesus’ call for His disciples to know Him in a personal manner. Raschke does not indicate why Jesus presented this truth in propositional statements, nor how the disciples grasped the propositional invitation in a manner that they could act upon.

Turning the focus to the priesthood of all believers, the content of the book begins to assimilate a model of postmodernism within Christianity. He notes that postmodernism can be narrowed to the following traits: the flattening of hierarchies at all levels; the development of webs of interconnectedness that do not have any hierarchies or chain of command; constant change with superficial phenomena taking precedence over deep structures (146.) Raschke states that postmodernism dissolves the state form of social structure and replaces it with a “heterogeneity of relationships in and through society as the immanence of culture” (151). This philosophy results in cell groups where there is no hierarchy or denominational structures. He traces this postmodern practice to the reformation principle of decentralizing clerical authority. It is the emphasis on sola fide that allows for a connection between Christians and God, and between believers in a community relationship. He sums up this relational concept by stating, “the real is relational and the relational is real” (158).

Chapters seven and eight offer little for the argument of the author or the understanding of the reader. Like the first two chapters, these appear to be space fillers rather than substantive content supporting his thesis. Each seems to be without cause, in the context of the rest of the book. He does attempt to connect the Mars Hill strategy of evangelism with a purely postmodern theory of church, but actually spends much time proving little. He notes that the model of the postmodern church must follow Luther’s goal of recovering the mood of the primitive church. He briefly overviews the postmodern principles of the emerging church and Pentecostal movement, but this example does little to help his argument.

His concluding chapter launches one final assault on propositional truth and one final apologetic for a Luther who was postmodern. He notes, “Luther would have been regarded as a postmodernist by the standards of his day” (208). He indicates that Luther was not concerned about the content of Scripture in his reformation principles, but rather with the manner in which Scripture spoke to him. Raschke attempted to prove this theory in his chapter on the priesthood of the believer, but offered no substantive data from Luther to demonstrate his claim. He offers none in the conclusion either. He notes that the reason propositional truth cannot be Christian in nature is that it is not unconditional. Neither can it be personal or relational. He concludes that it is impossible to develop a systematic theology from the Bible, for it is not a system of debatable propositions. One final distraction is raised in his conclusion. He notes, “After all, many of the pagans’ accusations at the time against Christians, which prompted the rise of apologetics, are eerily similar to what many evangelicals say about postmodern Christianity” (210).

Raschke sets out to establish a historical, reformation foundation for postmodernism. His ultimate goal is to persuade the church to return to a postmodern practice, thus returning to a reformation principle. His premise is masterful in its approach to attract sometimes hostile evangelicals to a postmodern philosophy, but his approach is lacking in integrity and scholarship. His work is replete with quotes taken out of context, assertions made without any historical link, and a presupposition that since propositional truth is too rigid, the only other alternative is postmodernism. His argument that postmodernism is actually a reformation principle is regularly and diversely asserted, but in no way demonstrated as accurate. He provides no conclusion to his discourse, no plan to move the adherent to his side, and no recourse for one to demonstrate the accuracy of his claim.

First, we should put together some basic differences between general and special revelation. General revelation includes everything that God has revealed about Himself through natural creation, including the creation of human beings. As is true of special revelation, general revelation is given to all rational beings (namely human beings). Another name for general revelation is natural revelation because it involves the revelation of God through natural, not supernatural, means. From natural revelation springs what we may call natural theology. Natural theology is the study of what can be known on the grounds of general revelation without involving God’s special revelation of Himself through Christ and the Scriptures.¹ Of course, this does not mean that everything we know through general revelation is known apart from the Bible. Even though natural theology centers on what is naturally or generally known about God, the sufficient word of God presides over it all.

Two portions of Scripture that speak of general revelation are Psalm 19 and Romans 1. Psalm 19 speaks of general revelation in this way, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them; and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”² David the psalmist shows in Psalm 19 that the skies, the day, the night, and even the sun glorify God in the course of their natural existences. There is much we can know about God, man, and life through the revelation of God in nature.

Another passage of Scripture is Romans 1. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”³ In this New Testament reference to general revelation, Paul explains that from the moment of creation God’s invisible attributes were visible. In fact, these attributes of God (i.e. His power and nature) are clearly evident to all people. We know that Paul has in mind the physical creation because in verse 23 he notes that people chose to follow the darkness of sin into worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. So God has generally revealed Himself through what He has made.

But the specific question we are answering here has to do with the authority of general revelation. Since certain aspects of God are known through creation, does general revelation wield authority over people? Are human beings accountable to general revelation even though it is limited in comparison to what God has specifically revealed about Himself? Yes. Human beings are accountable to God on the basis of what is generally known about Him, as well as what is specifically known. Return for a moment to Romans 1. Notice the thrust of the passage. It is not simply about what the material world may or may not reveal about God. Instead, the thrust of the passage is the judgment of God on those who fail to worship Him in spite of what they generally know about God. Because people suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, failed to honor God and give Him thanks, and exchanged the glory of God for the glory of His creation, God revealed His wrath. In wrath, God gave all people over to the enslavement of their lusts.⁴ Why would God punish people for their rejection of general revelation if it held no authority over their lives? All people are accountable to God on the basis of general revelation.

All of this is good and true. But we must not overlook the question begged by all this talk of authority and revelation. If God’s glorious attributes are clearly seen through what has been made, why does anyone suppress the truth or exchange it for a lie? Sin has corrupted not only our wills, but our vision as well. By grace, God provides a solution to the problem of our wills through the regenerating work of His Spirit. By God’s sovereign decree, the dead hearts of sinful men are made alive so that we are able to believe. This is not all. God does not merely shake us awake from our slumber in sin. He has ordained His word as the means of waking us. He has also ordained His word as a means of sanctifying us. God can do whatever He pleases and He has pleased to give us the special revelation of His word for conversion and sanctification alike.

In His word, we have a detailed and sufficient revelation of truth about Himself, His world, and His plans for us. Though the revelation of God in creation serves an important purpose, God’s special revelation of Himself in Scripture it better. The book of Hebrews opens with the declaration, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”⁵ Beyond creation, God prominently spoke to us through His Son and through the prophets. By God’s doing, we have these words preserved in the old and new testaments. This is the reason we do not refer to the Scriptures as general revelation.

The Scriptures are special (or specific) when compared to general revelation. The Bible contains more detail and is altogether better than natural revelation. Truly, the Scriptures are sufficient. As such, by nature of their sufficiency, they carry ultimate authority. This means that the word of God is the ordained resource for understanding and interpreting all other revelation. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”⁶ The word of God has authority over general revelation and authority over all people. While we are accountable to what is known in creation, we are even more accountable to what is known in God’s word. Indeed, He has revealed even more of Himself for us to believe.

Scripture is better because we need it more than general revelation. By grace, a person may look at the creation and know somethings about God. He may see the truth of God’s eternal power and divine nature. But by God’s design, general revelation will never provide enough for that person to know God. General revelation may teach us certain things about God. Furthermore, by the special revelation in the Bible we may actually come to know God. His plan for redemption and sanctification through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is merely foreshadowed in the heavens or on the sun or in the changing of the seasons. The clear message of redemption and sanctification is written only in the Scriptures.

As seen in Romans 1, men may look at creation, suppress the truth, and interpret it wrongly. Some may say the sun is god, the stars are gods, etc. Because it only provides a dim reflection of truth, general revelation is open to this kind of wrong interpretation. The word of God, on the other hand, is not open. As a specific revelation of God, the Scriptures are in no way a matter of personal interpretation.⁷

Because of sin, our vision is corrupted. We cannot rightly understand God’s general revelation. I needed glasses to make heads or tails of the optometrist’s eye chart. Similarly, we need the Scriptures to rightly see, not only the reflection of God in creation, but also see Him face to face. What little we would know without Scripture! How could we know God? This higher authority of Scripture is reason for us to appreciate what may be known of God in nature. We ought to direct all people to see the shadows of His glory in what has been made. Even more so, we ought to love God’s word as His a special revelation of Himself. Cherishing His word, not a mere shadow, but as a sufficient and ultimate revelation of Himself.

contributed by mynameisrush.com

1. Russell Moore. Section 1: The Doctrine of Revelation. A Theology for the Church by Danny Akin.
2. Psalm 19:1-6
3. Romans 1:18-23
4. Romans 1:24
5. Hebrews 1:1-2
6. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
7. 2 Peter 1:20

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for Islam’s next generation. We must go. We must tell. We must risk all so that they may know His Law, their Sin, and His marvelous grace. It was on cross where all of God’s wrath, love, grace and mercy were fully displayed. It is the cross of Jesus Christ that is the only hope for this little boy and all that surround him.

http://www.4truth.net/world-religions/islam/

Several year ago the acrostic WWJD could be found on bumper stickers, T-shirts, and bracelets. WWJD served as the theme for books, student conferences, and preaching series. The danger of the slogan only recently revealed itself. Although the initiators and promoters of this slogan certainly did not intend its results, the results are nonetheless apparent. An entire generation of church kids and teens began to recite this slogan, but the foundation of biblical thinking had not been properly established. A ramification of the absence of a proper biblical foundation is WWJD had no biblical basis on which students could make decisions. Developing biblical thinkers does not involve asking, “What would Jesus do?” but rather, “What did Jesus do?” Once believers begin to examine the actions and words of Christ, not as a Sunday School exercise but as a light shining on their lives, they will begin to develop godly opinions based on the certainty of Scripture, not on the speculation of how Jesus may behave.

Primarily, developing biblical thinkers is accomplished through proper exegesis of the text as well as the type of application offered in weekly Bible studies. Many Sunday Schools and small groups in churches offer a shot gun blast to applying Scripture. Most application is given in generalities such as “live better,” “serve faithfully,” “stay pure,” etc. Congregants are not asked to think or consider the details of life in light of the text which is often inaccurately handled. An examination of doctrinal statements made by Jesus reveals the inclusion of specific application to His audiences. He established the standard of examining all of life with an open Bible.  

An example of such application is what we have used with some of our high school students. One week, we gave them the assignment of watching 30 minutes to an hour of Fox News with the goal of answering, “What does God’s Word say about each idea presented in that time?” Two results emerged from this activity. One, students saw how far away their minds were from Scripture when looking at the world. Two, students were excited to see that God’s Word has a principle for every ideology in life, and with a little thought and investigation they could discover exactly what God thinks about the issues of life.

Developing biblical thinkers includes Scripture memory, sound Bible teaching and expository preaching. Those essentials serve as the starting points for developing biblical thinkers, but we must take the task to the next level. In order to develop biblical thinkers, the church must go to the hearts of the listeners, challenging and equipping them to look at life with an open Bible. This mission must be intentional and well planned.

-Meeting began at 6 and ended at 815

-Discussions included: Moral Law, Creationism vs. Evolution, Infinite Regress, Intelligent Design, Scientific theory and Christianity, and Core Problems throughout all cultures.

-I shared how atheism began with Descarte cracking open the door for people to accept that God is not necessary and that religion is without reason. Darwin opened the door a little more providing deniers with justification to not even include God in the discussion of life. Nietzsche kicked the door off its hinges by making God irrelevant to society’s success. Of course, the “evolution” of atheism was not well received.

-They noted recent and historical acts on the part of Christians that they perceived as hateful and destructive to civic order. I agreed, in part, pointing out that in every area of society there a people that do not represent their cause accurately. I told them that there are Christians that sometimes do not represent Christ well in their pursuit of Christianity and Christian values. I gave the example of someone tearing down one of their billboards. Don’t know if a Christian did that or not, but if so, such an act did not represent Christ well even if done for “the cause of Christ.”

-They refer to themselves as “non-religious” people but are not offended by me referring to them as atheist.

-Their stated goal is to “get religious and non-religious people to work together for a better society.”

-They are highly civic minded, but also assert that religion is the cause of the world’s problems and lack of civic peace.

-We talked at length about the core reason for the absence of peace. I asked them if they just wanted to modify the behavior of society so everyone would get along, pointing out that such a modification would result in billions of people conforming to a behavior but really not meaning it in their hearts. From there we discussed the need to address the root cause of the absence of peace which I presented as man’s sin problem, namely that man has broken God’s law and is therefore not at peace with God, self or man.

-They are pursuing a campaign called “Building Bridges” that seeks to unite religious and non-religious people in civic activity. I shared that my goal of walking across such a bridge would be that they and all people confess they have broken God’s law, repent and trust Christ alone for salvation. Since they are a “free thinking society” it was difficult for them to reject my thoughts outright, but they continued to express that “proselytizing” would not bring peace between religious and non-religious people. I returned to the emphasis that the core of division is not behavior but rather sin in man’s heart.

-I received an email this morning that they desire to meet again and continue the discussion.  The gospel and Christianity are reasonable, but only God can change the heart of man.

-Keep praying that the glorious light of Christ will break through the darkness of their sin.

 York and Decker present a work that is a challenge to the busy pastor. A refreshing approach to the issue of a time consumed preacher is presented in the introduction. With an onslaught of works that pacify the busy preacher into believing that sermonic integrity can be maintained through corner cutting methods, York and Decker defend the necessity of a busy preacher to be labor intensive in the area of sermon preparation, and to return to the foundation that preaching is the primary call of the preacher. An assault against current trends of simply gathering information to present is leveled, and even worse against those who seek to plagiarize their sermonic material.

The book is finally and emphatically an advocate of the expository model of preacher and a new method of sermon development is offered. This is detailed later in the review but a word is worth say here. The Decker Grid System seems to be one of the newest and freshest ideas in the area of homiletics in a long time. With the majority of homiletical works consistently reaffirming what previous author’s have purported, whether one agrees with the proposes system or not, the regular reader of homiletical works will have to agree that it is refreshing to see a concept in preaching that is not merely a regurgitation of previously held concepts. This review seeks to demonstrate through a careful analysis of the text, the manner in which York and Decker go outside the normal avenues of most texts on preaching and provide fresh insights for the expositor.

A major benefit to the preacher, stemming from this work is the emphasis on passionate delivery. York and Decker migrate away from the normalcy of sermon manuals that merely purport the mechanics of delivery and the make up of the vocal instrument, to a plea for heart felt delivery that is consistent with the heart of the text. A combination of technical aspects of sermon preparation and an emphasis on delivery that impacts lives is the thrust of this work.

Chapter one provides a strong reminder of the privilege of preaching. The author’s remind the preacher of the awesome task that is before him each week in the pulpit. The proclamation of the word is the greatest call and the preachers ultimate goal is to effectively communicate the word of God. An interesting inclusion of the need of the day and its parallel with the needs of the people in the Bible allows the preacher to examine the text in the light of people, not just developmental methodologies. Often an emphasis on the Holy Spirit is attached almost parenthetically to the end of a work on preaching. Refreshingly the work of the Spirit in preaching is a primary emphasis from the beginning of this work. Placing this section in the forefront of the remainder of the book establishes the precedence for a dependency on the Holy Spirit throughout the exegetical and delivery process. 

The section on preaching’s goal establishes the thrust of the rest of the work. As a result of the author’s thesis that preaching is designed “grip their souls and motivate them to conform to the will of God” (11), the reader is lead through the process of sermon development with not only the text in mind, but also the future recipients of the message. This emphasis, like that of the Holy Spirit, placed in the front matter of a book on preaching is unusual. Again, the interest in the audience is often reserved for the end of the exegetical process, and is usually and awkward transfer of thought for the preacher. York and Decker allow the preacher the freedom to keep his audience in mind from the beginning of the exegetical process in order to effectively communicate to their heart, not just their head.

Chapter three provides yet another refreshing new insight into the heart of expository preaching. With most works on the subject emphasizing a mere mechanical approach to sermon preparation and delivery, York and Decker call the preacher to immerse himself in a series of personal commitments in regard to preaching, before the exegetical process begins. This act returns to their consistent theme of heart preaching from a preacher whose heart has been changed by the text. The commitments preachers are called to affirm are to the profitability of all scripture. This section calls for a commitment to the whole of scripture. It also offers the warning that the manner in which we handle the word of God in the pulpit is the like manner our people will handle the word of God in private. The second commitment is to the nature of preaching. The emphasis in preaching is not on the preacher, but rather on the text through the preacher.

A third commitment is to thinking about what scripture means, how it applies, and how people think. This thinking process, according to York and Decker is an often neglected discipline in preaching that simply seeks to gather information and recite it to an unknown audience.

            A move into the steps to preparing an expository sermon begins with gaining familiarity with the text. The author’s suggest reading the text through many times with an eye for discovering the natural divisions of the text. The next step is to discover the natural units within the text. Herein lays a weakness of the book in that not much in the way of guidelines is provided for determining the way a text divides. Next is the labeling of the main theme of the preaching unit, followed by organizing the text for sermon development, and diagramming the passage. These steps seem somewhat out of line since the diagram often provides the structure of the sermon and always provides the division of the text. However, understanding the difficulty that most preaching students encounter in the diagramming process, the author’s provide excellent details and examples of effective diagramming.

            After the preliminary work of gaining familiarity with the text and breaking it into its natural divisions, the authors suggest a step for determining the context of the passage in hand. Several helpful dimensions of the contextual analysis are provided, which serve as a guide for the preacher to clearly and accurately determine the context of the passage. A natural next step from contextual analysis is the content analysis. Here the exegete examines the previously constructed diagram, seeking first to determine the author’s thought pattern.

            The authors are conscious that the tendency of the preacher is to find a sermon, so consistent warning is inserted, reminding the preacher that the initial goal is to determine the meaning. Continuing to journey from the text to the sermon an in-depth look at how to use the structural diagram to outline the passage is provided. The author’s note that this step is key and will be built upon in later steps, therefore their attention to explanation of the process is helpful. A beneficial look at how narrative text does not always fit the prescribed pattern is included.

            Now comes the Decker Grid system of sermon construction. Warnings are given to preachers against things like LBOW’s and rambling. Here is where the mechanics of sermon preparation and the passionate heart of preaching intersect, thus overcoming the pointlessness of merely repeating words. A series of questions relating to the text and to the audience make up the heart of the Decker Grid system. His system is not only organization in nature but also for the purpose of communication in a way, according to Decker, that most people think. The first step is laying the cornerstones which consist of the main theme in a word, audience view, benefits to listeners and action steps. Once these are placed on post it notes the preacher delivers the cornerstones in the order of point of view, actions steps, benefits.

            The next step in the Decker System is that of creating ideas or brainstorming that relate to the four cornerstones mentioned above. The third step is what Decker calls the cluster step in which the ideas are related together and edited. The final step is the composing step that calls for a determination of which points or post it notes will stay on the grid, focusing on the texts primary emphasis.

            The Decker System is unique to homiletical design and has many benefits. Primarily it is a system that requires the preacher to think through the subject matter of the text, organize his thoughts in a systematic manner, and keep not on the content of the passage in mind, but also the audience in mind throughout the process. The negatives to the Decker System may outweigh its benefits. The system is somewhat cumbersome. Moving dozens of sticky notes around on a page seems a bit antiquated for the modern preacher who does the majority of his preparation on computer. Carrying the grid to the pulpit will most certainly be a distraction with sticky notes folded up. Further and the storage of such a system will tend to be bulky and the potential for notes to fall off a page and be lost is great. The method itself is useful, but the physical handling of the notes and materials may cause more distraction that the intended good of memorizing the message.

            An immensely helpful section on communicating to change lives returns the book  to the flow of developing sermons. A heavy emphasis is placed on discovering the core proposition, but limited details are provided as to how to discover this core proposition. Decker and York share a commonality with many preaching books in this regard, namely and emphasis on a central idea of the text that is built upon and serves as a pivot point for the sermon, but not details on exactly how to discover that proposition and clearly articulate it. This is another of the few weaknesses in this work.

            A major strength of this work, often neglected by other, is a detailed chapter on developing sermon illustrations, as well as a defense for the use of illustrations. York and Decker do not, however, break the mold in their description of the need and mechanics of developing and introduction and conclusion. These sections seem to be lifted out of the common themes of other preaching manuals. A final strength, somewhat unique to this work, is the emphasis on audience analysis. Several chapters touch on the aspect of examining the audience as one examines the text. This work provides helpful insights into the discipline of expository preaching, offering some new ideas in the field, and championing time proven methods of exposition.

Donald MacLeod presents a historical, analytical work that underscores foundational elements within Christological studies. Although his subtitle is, “Contours of Christian Theology,” the book reads more like controversies in Christian theology. His research method appears to be extensive in its scope, including a balanced approach from each side of the various issues covered. Several times he seems to rely too heavily on one theologian, but the majority of subjects addressed are done so with multiple theologians contributing to the debate. His purpose is to demonstrate the attacks against orthodox Christology throughout the history of the Church. He spends too little time on the councils, but his verbiage presents the profound impact each council had on the perpetuation of sound doctrine in the Church. MacLeod traces the major doctrines that systematically comprise Christology including: the virgin birth, pre-existence, sonship, historical ditch, deity, incarnation, perfection, kenosis, sinlessness, and uniqueness. Obviously each of these subjects, in relation to Christ, overlap each other, but MacLeod presents each in such a way that the non-negotiable nature of each in Christological studies is clearly evident.

MacLeod notes that in the early years of the Church, they neglected the humanity of Christ and focused too much on Jesus being from heaven. He delves into the dilemma of whether Christology should primarily be from above or below, noting that the early Church had a view of Christ as fundamentally from above. He presents a balancing of the issue by noting statements in John’s gospel and Hebrews that demonstrates not only a focus on the deity of Christ, but also a clear elevation of His humanity in the subject matter of revelation.

An excellent section is devoted to the dilemmas that often arise in theological debates over the birth narrative. MacLeod somehow takes the complex issue of the virgin conception and narrows it down to, “Mary became pregnant without sexual intercourse” (25). He demonstrates how the issue of the virgin conception was not an issue for over eighteen hundred years. MacLeod traces the controversy through recent history noting the major issues that have arisen out of the subject. He notes that there are objectors to the validity of the narratives. A foundational polemic against these objectors of the virgin conception is also provided. He states that many will argue that outside of Matthew and Luke’s narrative there is no other reference to the virgin birth in the New Testament. Obviously, those who propose such an attack against the doctrine must first deny the inerrancy of Scripture, but must also discount the testimonies of the two gospel writers. MacLeod’s defense is that in the portions of Scripture that record the event there is one hundred percent consistency in the story. He also notes that Matthew and Luke would have been so readily known by others that a repeat of the story was not necessary to the theme in other New Testament works. He gives three other points to consider in this section. First, he notes the painstaking attention to detail that Luke employs in his gospel account. It is unlikely that such a story as the virgin birth was not widely circulated as fact. Second, MacLeod states that the virgin conception, at the time, would have been a very closely guarded secret. Third, the fact that the virgin conception did not circulate in the preaching of the early Church is evidence that Matthew and Luke did not simply read the event back into the original account as some have postulated about their works. MacLeod notes that sixteen hundred years passed before anyone began to suspect that there were inconsistencies in the story. Surely if this much time lapsed, there must have been issues at the time of question rather than at the time of the actual event.

Several places in MacLeod’s section on the pre-existence of Christ leave the reader with some questions about his position. He begins with a simple word study of the issue from the gospel of John. He notes that the present tense use of “I am” in John 8:57-58 “emphasizes the ageless open-endedness of Christ’s existence and because it brings out the continuity between incarnate life and his pre-incarnate past” (46). He also unfolds the value of John 17:5 in understanding Jesus’ view about His own pre-existence. John A. T. Robinson questioned whether John really taught the personal pre-existence of Christ. Robinson notes, “the language he uses to designate Christ in his profoundest relationship to the Father is the same language that he applies in a weaker and more general sense to man in general” (47). It appears that this is one time that Robinson misses the beauty of the ocean by looking at a small thimble full of salt water. MacLeod notes that the similarity in the language possesses one dividing point, namely that when referring to believers, Jesus did not use exalted language as He did when referring to Himself. The conclusion is that the similar language is different, for when referring to Jesus it is ontological in nature rather than merely a relation of fellowship as with the believers. MacLeod follows this with similar patterns of discussing pre-existence in Hebrews, Pauline writings, and the synoptic gospels. Pannenberg is used to conclude the discussion stating, “If God has revealed himself in Jesus, then Jesus’ community with God, His Sonship, belongs to eternity” (64).

‘Christ, The Son of God’ is a section that deals with the self claims of Jesus as God’s Son. In a sense, MacLeod reveals how Jesus somewhat appears to take the gloves off from the synoptic gospels to John’s gospel in making clearly known that He is indeed God’s Son.  He dissects the phrase monogenes hyios stating, “it usually suggests not only that the person referred to had no brothers or sisters but that his parents never had but this one child. It thus indicates not only ontological but ontogenetic uniqueness” (72). He deals extensively with the issue of adoption. This seems to be the prevailing attack against orthodox Christology over the years that continues to assault the sonship of Christ. Subordination is also addressed and MacLeod comes down on the side of equality in His substance, but functionally submissive in His sonship.

Addressing Lessing’s ugly ditch theory, MacLeod unfolds the issues relating to the manner in which Christology was handled throughout history. He focuses on the incongruities that exist in modern Christology and the historical record of the person of Christ. He notes that the early Church simply believed Christ to be divine. This was the historical record they accepted as common fact and knowledge. He notes that much of the material disputed today was not in any dispute for the first believers. The reason is that the “prominence of such material . . . accurately reflects the specific interests and usages of Jesus” (115). The accusation that the early believers embellished or even originated the stories of Christ is strongly dismissed by MacLeod. He lists multiple attacks against such accusations, providing the reader with a strong apologetic in the face of such debates.

He adequately works his was through the various councils. Much information, especially the details of what led to the councils, is left out, which is the only major flaw in the entire work. He notes that the Council of Nicea gave the most important statement of their effort when they declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father. His conclusion in all the work through the councils is “It [the essence of the Son] could not be subordinate to that of the Father for the simple reason that it was not only generically but numerically identical with that of the Father” (151).

His strongest section in the work is his treatment of the incarnation of Christ. He systematically works through the issues of the major heresies of Docetism and Apollinarianism. In a sense he takes each of these heresies apart, demonstrating the theological and historical weakness of each.

Perhaps one of the unique contributions of this work is MacLeod’s section on ‘human emotions. He notes that if one denies the sinless human emotions of Christ, one must also deny the complete humanity of Christ. To think that Christ could have been fully man, yet not experience all the sinless emotions of man is contradictory. He notes that although the Scripture does not portray Jesus as smiling or laughing, it does not mean the absence of joy. Even though He was a man of sorrows, does not negate the presence of happiness. MacLeod states that if Jesus was joyless, He must have been sinful, because Scripture clearly teaches that the absence of joy is the presence of sin. MacLeod uses a phrase in this section that is disturbing to the reader. He comments repeatedly on the “moment of dereliction of Calvary,” but never explains fully what he means by such a statement. He also notes, “But there, on Golgotha, he was a sinner” (177). He seems to take Scripture as well as his quoted statement by Luther way out of context in this assessment. It is not clear if MacLeod truly means what he states here, as this phraseology is grossly inconsistent with the rest of his discourse.

His concluding section on the uniqueness of Christ in modern theology eliminates the arguments espoused by modern theologians who seek to undo what Chalcedon and the other councils established. MacLeod dismantles the historically inconsistent Christology of Bultmann, Hick, Unitarians and Process Theologians. His polemic against Liberation Theology gives too much to the positives of the theological discipline, but he presents a strong argument against one adopting the tenants as a fully developed Christology.

Quotes

“The miraculous conception receives 100% attestation from the available records” (30).

“Whatever the ethical merits of these procedures they completely nullify the argument that ordinary procreation is essential to genuine humanness” (35).

“To deny the virgin birth and introduce instead human sexual activity is to distance God unacceptably from the production of the Holy One” (39).

“Holiness can exist in human life only by virtue of divine action and so far as Jesus Christ is concerned that action occurs in the very commencement of his existence” (41).

“It surely required the impulse of more than ordinary human loyalty to divinize a man crucified for blasphemy and Messianic delusions” (114).

“The attenuated Christ of recent Christian skepticism could not have built a mouse-trap, let alone a Church” (116).

“Take away the synoptic Jesus, replace him with a demythologized one, and Christianity becomes an insoluble historical enigma” (117).

“Christ has put on our feelings along with our flesh” (170). John Calvin

“The homoagape requires the homoousion. Without that, we cannot say that God loved me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20); or that the love of God constrains us (2 Cor. 5:14); or that God loved the Church and gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25).” (245).