Puzzling illustrations

Advocates of modern translations and the Greek critical text have introduced the puzzle – particularly the jigsaw puzzle – to try to illustrate either the problem or the solution regarding whether we now have all the words inspired of God for the New Testament.[i] Curiously and tellingly, the puzzle illustration is puzzling, used in contradictory fashion by various apologists and text critics.

First, there is the “proof of preservation” use by apologists such as James White, Marc Minter, Robert Bowman, and Jonathan Beazley.[ii] Beazley writes:

Imagine the Bible is like a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Over the duration of history, we have obtained 10,100 pieces. This is a much better dilemma than obtaining 9,900 pieces. Textual criticism comes along and determines through in-depth factors, which would best resemble the original, and which were the added 100 pieces.

Minter uses the illustration similarly, only with fewer puzzle pieces:

Quite simply, the textual variants in the New Testament manuscript tradition provide 1,074 pieces (not a technically precise number) to a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle. We do not have to wonder if we have all the words of the original authors; we are merely left with the task of fitting the pieces together appropriately and leaving the extras on the side.

White also uses the 10,000-piece puzzle in trying to explain how he can believe that we have all the original readings from the apostles (comments start about 12 minutes in on the linked video):

Robert Bowman used, I thought, a brilliant illustration – Dan Wallace agreed that it was a brilliant illustration – he said, “The situation we face is like having a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and we have 10,100 pieces”...Now, you know, that having 10,100 pieces would complicate that process, because you have to identify the extra pieces. But, which would you rather have, 10,100 pieces and have to identify the extra pieces, or 9,900 pieces and never be able to complete the puzzle? We don’t have the 9,900, we have the 10,100. And so, that is, to me, is a tremendous testimony to preservation of the text of scripture over time. I believe that God has preserved the New Testament.

On first glance, the puzzle illustration seems to provide an outlet for asserting the preservation of Scripture while at the same time dismissing providential preservation. It is, however, problematic. The apologists arguing on this basis simply assume that no pieces are lost and that the 100 pieces are extra.[iii] Once providential preservation has been jettisoned, they are left without a leg to stand on. Text critics do text criticism with a naturalistic mindset, “as if God didn’t exist.” “If God didn’t exist,” it is just as likely that they only have 9,000 pieces of the puzzle – with 1,000 needed pieces missing and 1,000 pieces that are extras from some other puzzle (just “chance survivals from the past”). As Dan Wallace claims, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” Using their own puzzle illustration: since they do not have the picture of what they puzzle is supposed to look like, they will never know whether they have pieced it together correctly. Only because of God promising to preserve and providentially preserving his word can we believe that we have the correct 10,000 puzzle pieces.

Second, there is the “lack of preservation” use by text critics such as Tommy Wasserman, Paolo Trovato, and Peter Gurry. Text critics contradict the assertions of the apologists.

In contrast to the apologists, Italian historian Paolo Trovato puts it this way:

Thus, a good simile for our situation could be that you are trying to put together the pieces of an enormous old puzzle in which the most precious pieces must be putted in the center of the puzzle, but only 5% or 10% of the pieces are extant, and the rest is missing.

Similarly, Gurry and Wasserman:

As Richard Evans reminds us, our historical knowledge is always contingent on “the extent to which it is possible to reconstruct the past from the remains left behind.” What is left behind are fragments, chance survivals from the past—we are trying to piece together the puzzle with only some of the pieces. In the case of textual criticism, this means that we have only a selection of the manuscripts that once existed, and sometimes incomplete manuscripts. Although New Testament textual critics are used to straining under the number of manuscripts that we possess, there must be an even greater number that are forever lost.[iv]

While White, Marc, Bowman, Beazley, and others have left over puzzle pieces, Wasserman, Trovato, Gurry and their partisans are short puzzle pieces, “trying to piece together a puzzle with only some of the pieces.” If apologists and critics approach the text of the Bible with a naturalistic mindset—“chance survivals from the past”—then the “lack of preservation” puzzle will win. Every time.

---

[i] A jigsaw puzzle consists of various pieces of different shapes of cardboard, wood, or similar material, that have to be fitted together to form a picture or design.
[ii] These men believe God has preserved his word, after a fashion, in the total body of manuscripts that have been found. Probably Robert Bowman, referenced by White, is Robert M. Bowman Jr., an evangelical Christian apologist and President of Faith Thinkers.org.
[iii] This is based on the simplistic, senseless, and suspect “rule” that the shortest reading is the correct reading. Therefore, these proponents think you just “go through and examine those variants and see what has been added later.”
[iv] “Limitations and Future Improvements” in A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, Tommy Wasserman, Peter J. Gurry. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017, p. 112. 

1 Peter 3:15

So, is 1 Peter 3:15 the "Great Commission for Apologetics" or an exhortation to be ready to give your testimony? The word translated "answer" is apologia, the word from which we get the English word "apologetics." It may mean a verbal defense or a reasoned statement. The word itself could include either. What may we glean from the context?

The immediate context is the sentence of 1 Peter 3:14-16: But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

The broader context contains instructions for the behavior of God's people, beginning in 2:11. This includes submission of Christians to law & government, of servants to masters, or wives to husbands. Giving an answer is part of that behavior, a dual submission to God and man. A submission to God in having and giving an answer, and submission to man in giving an answer to those who ask. Christians should live in fear of God and not what man might do. Disciples may suffer for righteousness sake, but do not recoil in fear.

Rather than fear what man might do, let us sanctify/separate/set apart the Lord in our hearts. Isaiah writes, "Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread (Isaiah 8:13)." The Lord God is the one we are to regard as holy; let us set that aside in our hearts and act accordingly. This prepares us to be "be ready". We are to be ready to "give an answer". This answer is apologia, a reasoned statement of why there is a hope within us. We can and should search the scriptures, rightly divide the word of truth and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. But let us not forget the simplicity of the untutored new creature showing "how great things God hath done unto thee. Luke 8:39)."

The witness here is not one of evangelism, but a witness or answer to those who ask or inquire honestly (or authoritatively) concerning our hope. Some Bible students believe that this should be connected to the submission to authorities as taught in chapter 2. If so, the readiness advised may be considered more prayerful and spiritual rather than academic, for Jesus told His apostles when they were brought to the synagogues, and before magistrates and authoritiess, they were to take "no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say -- For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say (Luke 12:11-12)." This doesn't sound like a prepared speech or programmed answer.

John Gill writes that the answer should not be delivered in a light, trifling, and negligent manner, and no part of truth be dropped or concealed in order to please men. Further he encourages it be answered with all due respect to all men, especially the civil magistrates, who may ask the reason, with a reverence suitable to the subject.

We should give answer with meekness and fear (fear God more and fear men less, Luke 12:4-5). Our answers to men are with respect towards man, and proper fear or reverence towards God. If we fear God more than we fear man, we will not be afraid to "give an answer". Some avoid making their Christianity audible or visible, shy away from conflict, and either do not or seldom do give any answers to any men. Certainly we need to know to be swift to hear and slow to speak, but that advice rises from the appropriate application of wisdom, not from being mute concerning our faith. The intent includes deflecting false accusations off oneself, but particularly because it is reflection on the Christian profession. Do it all in good conscience, with good intent and good conversation that contradicts the false accusations and embarasses the false accusers. The Christian answers, keeping a good conscience, which others cannot see and displaying good behaviour, which which others can see. We do what is right no matter what.

The answering Christian resigns to God's will and way, "If we suffer, we suffer." We live in a world of perpetual suffering, and how much better it is to suffer for doing good rather than suffer for doing wrong! In Peter's instruction we hear echoes of the words of the "3 Hebrew children": God is able to deliver us, we believe He will deliver us, but if not, we will serve the Lord regardless.

Peter 3:15 and apologetics

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Is this the apologetics text? Dictionary.com says that apologetics is "the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity." Someone once said that 1 Peter 3:15 is the "Great Commission" for Apologetics. But is it?

Some Christians make nothing of this text. They do not engage it's instructions in any way. They shy away from and avoid giving any answers about Christianity in any way. They are not ready.

Some Christians make too little of this text. They approach life strictly as "shoot from the hip" -- don't aim, just fire.

Some Christians make too much of this text. They approach giving an answer for the reason of the hope that is in them as a specialty that requires a systematic study and an accompanying. Just anyone should not "give answer".

Surely all of these approaches live much to be desired. But, then, what does Peter mean?

That's all I have time to write at the moment. Think about this and share your comments. I'll hope to tease this out further. 

Remember that verse 15 is part of a sentence couched in between the 14th and 16th verses. Maybe that will help.

1 Peter 3:14-16 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

Not Ted Turner, Ted Turnau...

How should we relate to culture? Immerse ourselves within it? Withdraw to a cave or monastery? Most of us would probably say we opt for something in between these two extremes. Yet, despite our rhetoric, it seems likely that a majority of American Christians embrace our culture mindlessly and neither "push back" nor "give back". About a year ago, Ted Turnau released on the world Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective (P & R Publishing, 2012, ISBN 1596383895), delving into what he describes as a messy issue. "...like it or not, notice it or not, popular culture plays a huge role in our day-to-day lives, often influencing the way we think and see the world." 

Here's a few "sound bytes".

"The problem is that popular culture is also a pervasive influence. It seems at once ephemeral and vital. Christians often either dismiss its influence as trivial or become flustered and assume a defensive posture. Popular culture is like something floating in the air around us, and it has the power to influence our beliefs. But we're not really sure what to do about it."

Not only are we not really sure what to do about it, we often don't know where to look for help.

"Popular culture has emerged in the last hundred years or so as one of the most significant carriers (perhaps the most significant carrier) of worldview and values in the West....For many Christians, worldview talk sounds too intellectual to be practically helpful...A worldview is the perspective from which you understand reality...like conversations, worldviews often take unexpected turns as we are confronted with the shocks, surprises, and recurring pains and delights that life throws at us."

Within our culture is an epidemic of self-love, embracing the fallen nature and casting God down from His throne. According to Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell, when we make observations about "cultural change--especially changes in the negative direction--one runs the risk of mistaking one's aging for a true shift in culture"! So for a middle-ager like me, it is encouraging to know that young Christians are observing the culture shift as well. It's not just the mistake of old men! 

So what do we do?

"Our task as Christians, then, is to respond to popular culture as a messy, deeply meaningful mixture. And I believe the only appropriate response to something that messy and that meaningful is apologetics [defending and commending the Christian faith in a context of unbelief]...Engaging popular culture will not save the world...It will allow you to enter into dialogue with [your family, your friends, the folks you work with, and the folks you relax with] and speak truth into their lives with sensitivity, insight and grace. And maybe, just maybe, it will help you love these people and be salt and light in the lives of those around you."

As culture carries conservative Christians farther than we want to go and keeps us longer than we want to stay, it is vital that we think deeply and scripturally on how we are in the world but not of the world -- And that we engage our culture, messy as it is, with a dialogue about God from the word of God.

When the lights come on

While studying at Westminster Theological Seminary, Ted Turnau* tells of how he was driven by apologetics and "wanted to build a fool-proof philosophical argument for God's existence." One day he went to visits his apologetics professor, David Clowney, who wasn't in his office. So he knocked on the next door...

"It was Vern Poythress, one of the New Testament profs there. He opened the door and asked what I wanted. I told him I needed to talk, and proceeded to tell him the whole story of my time at Westminster, why I’d come, what I was looking for. I said, “I just want some solid, logical proof that God exists. Then I could believe in him.” Vern thought for a moment, and then said, “Let’s say that the phone rings. It’s your Dad. You talk for a bit, and then hang up. I ask you who it was, and you say, ‘It was my Dad.’ And I say back to you, ‘Prove it. Give me an airtight, logical proof that you were just talking to your Dad.’ You wouldn’t be able to. And yet you know that you were talking to your father. How? Because you know your father’s voice. Well, that’s exactly the experience of Christians when they read the Bible. They know their Father’s voice.” And I said, “Oh,” and a light bulb came on over my head (just like the cartoons)."**

There is much confirming evidence and many philosophical arguments for God's existence -- and for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a "hot topic" this time of year. But we must also understand that we approach Him by faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. It is by that faith that we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. It is by that faith we believe that God is

According to the starting point for apologetics is "hearing God's voice, and seeing the world through those lenses." And those are scriptural lenses. Amen!

* Turnau has recently published Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective (P & R Publishing, 2012, ISBN 1596383895).
** This story is taken by permission from an interview with by Jared Moore, and published on his blog site This is God's world

Anointing with oil, reprise

Back in 2006, I posted a brief essay on anointing with oil. I entered into a brief discussion of it recently on Adrian Neal’s blog. A preacher brother there set forth some views against symbolic oil and favoring medicinal oil. Rather than making extended posts there, I have brought most of my rebuttal here to my own blog. The following italicized quotes are from two different posts on Brother Neal’s blog (which can be viewed at the above link).

History seems to show that families did not have every-day pediatricians or family doctors. Instead, their pastors acted in a medicinal sense. Historical references show early church bishops as the family "doctor". Not that he was trained in the arts of medicine (if you can call what they did back in that day medicine). But rather that physicians were not common for people that were not rich. The bishop did often assume this roll, since he was called for when someone was sick.

If you have found some references that show early bishops acting as the family doctor, I have no argument with that. Probably some of them were doctors (consider Luke of NT times, and John Clarke of Rhode Island). Perhaps some were not. Such historical occurrences do not govern the interpretation of James 5:14-15. Ultimately it is the Bible, not history, which is inspired, accurate and authoritative. Were doctors common and affordable? Were doctors reliable? Job’s expression in the reply to his friends (13:4 physicians of no value) implies there were also physicians of some value. Statements such as in Jeremiah 8:22 and Matthew 9:12 also imply that the sick finding a physician – and being healed – was not that unusual. And Jesus surely wouldn’t recommend that the sick need physicians if all physicians in that day were quacks. Surely Luke wasn’t, but was rather a beloved one (Colossians 4:14).

Back then, oils were some of, if not the only, medicines they had that actually helped. Similar to a Vicks Vapor rub, different kinds of oils had different effects. Different herbs were crushed and mixed into the different oils. Thus, when someone was sick, they would call for the pastor. He would pray for them, but also anoint them with the oils for healing.
There were different kinds of oils and oil mixtures used for different purposes. Some soothing of skin, some soothing of muscles, some keeping pests out, some for constant inhalation (like Vicks Vapor Rub today).

If the medicinal interpretation of James 5:14-15 is correct, then surely oil is the universal medicine. But again, both history and the Bible show that oil was not the universal medicine, however good it may be. Quacks or no, doctors living in the early New Testament period not only used oils, but even performed surgeries. In an entirely makeshift situation, the Good Samaritan did not use oil alone, but poured oil and wine into the wounds of the man beaten by thieves. As to different kinds of oils, historically I don’t question that different oils and different herbs were used medicinally. That is still true today. But, where, oh where, do we find the different oils and herbs in James 5:14-15? There are no herbs there, and the oil is probably only olive oil, since the Greek word ἐλαίῳ (olive oil) is used.

The pastors carried the oils with them when called. Indeed the sick were healed by the LORD, but it shows that God doesn't disagree with church members relying on Him, and at the same time using soothing medicines. Thus, take a little wine for thy stomach sake, right? If God just wanted people to be anointed with some symbolic oil and wait for healing, then why would He command this of Timothy?

There was and is no argument from me against using medicines. I just don’t believe that medicine is what is in view in James 5:14-15. I do believe the medicinal value of the wine is in view in I Timothy 5:23.

We have no other place in the Bible oil was used for magical healing, or for pastoral prayers.

We find other places where oil was used for anointing; more than where it was used for medicine. One specifically connected to healing is Mark 6:13. And no one has suggested any “magical” healing here – unless you suppose God healing in answer to prayer is “magic”. Does God heal people we pray for, whether or not they use medicine? If not, why do we pray for the sick? Just go to the doctor and be done with it.

This type of interpretation that the oil was NOT medicinal would seem to ALSO take away from the idea that God is the one who heals. As a matter of fact, it would seem to suggest one must have the oil for God to do the healing.

But, in fact, it is only in a medical interpretation that the oil has any effect on healing. In a symbolic interpretation it is only symbolic. It produces no effect. It only answers to simple obedience to a literal reading of the Scripture. This idea which you foist upon my interpretation, I suspect you are not willing to apply to your own. That is, that one must have the oil for God to do the healing. If this logic “must” applies to the text, then you are pierced by the horns of your own dilemma. One must use medicine for God to do the healing. If not, why not?

Why not? Because either way is an anemic look at only one incident in the whole of Scripture. The whole Scripture gives the full look at the subject of God healing. I would sum it up roughly by saying God does not object to the use of medicine (cf. Luke 5:31), but that it is sinful to rely on doctors to the exclusion of faith in God (cf. II Chronicles 16:12).

An interesting observation of the medicinal interpretation of James 5:14-15 is this: Of all those who assert this interpretation, I have not yet seen even one obey it. I do not know of a single Baptist who has asked pastors and come rub oil and herbs on them while they pray for them. Oh, you say, I don’t really believe it means that. Do tell.

[Note: some uses of oil that I find in the Bible – offering, fuel for light, anointing, food/cooking, ointment, gift or payment/barter, product to sell, purification, perfume, moisturizer, medicine. The most references seem to be anointing; there is a lot concerning light, offerings and food – and the symbolic representation of wealth, God’s pleasure on His people – but not that much about medicinal use, it would seem to me.]

Restoring Integrity: our view of God

Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches requires a correct view of God, a view that many Christians do not have. There are many visions and versions of who or what God is.

To some he is the glorified Santa Claus, the god who exists to grant our wishes. If you need a shiny new toy, he's the go-to guy. Don't worry about him the rest of the year.

To some he is the dutiful servant, a "little g" god who is bound to execute whatever the faithful demand. If you believe the Word of God and confess it then you will receive whatever you want. God must do it.

To many a nominal Christian he is the Deist's disinterested creator, who may have started everything but has left it to its own course. We can't believe all this got here by accident. But we can't believe a sovereign creator is actively governing this world, either.

To others he is an impotent ruler who, like a lame-duck President thwarted by a resistant Congress, is trying to work his will in the face of stubborn human resistance. Man is doing what he will, and God is trying to do what he can.

We need to catch of view of what Isaiah saw, the Lord high and lifted up. We need to hear God as Job heard Him, and know that He can do everything, and that no thought can be withheld from Him. Almighty God is the Sovereign Creator Who reigns on high, rules this universe and conducts its affairs by His All-wise Providence. He is neither a Santa Claus to grant our wishes, a servant who is bound by our commands, a disinterested beginner of events who rarely shows up, nor an impotent ruler who can't quite do anything because of the free will of man. "[God] is both the Almighty Creator and Merciful Redeemer; he is not a valet who caters to our whims."* "God is not your errand boy and He's not going to jump through a hoop just because you hold it up."** If my view of God doesn't inspire awe, I have no vision of the God of the Bible.

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." -- Romans 11:36 (source, origin) (instrumentality, power) (purpose, consummation, completion)

'Of Him' suggests source or origin. God is eternal. Before Him nothing exists. God dwells in eternity, beyond the grasp of the thoughts of time-bound mankind. He not only has no end, but also has no beginning!

Before the world’s were set in place
Or angels brought to be,
Eternal Godhead filled all space
Through vast eternity.

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
The All Sufficient Three;
This glorious God whom angels boast,
At first ‘twas only He.

Nothing but God was there at all
No, nothing else but He!
‘Twas nothing there however small,
Nor need there any be.

From everlasting, God is He,
The self-existent One.
His age equals eternity;
He was when there was none.

Eternity - before, behind,
And all points in between,
Were by the Lord clearly defined.
By Him all things were seen.

He spoke creation into place
And fashioned mortal man;
Then saved him by eternal grace -
His everlasting plan.***

'Through Him' suggests power and instrumentality -- omnipotence. By Him everything exists. Without Him nothing exists. He is the Creator, the beginning of all things. He is the Sustainer of all things. For in Him we live and move and have our being. Science (falsely so-called) has robbed us of these two truths. Don't need a creator? Substitute evolution. Don't need a ruler? Substitute chance and the laws of nature. My paternal grandfather was an old-time farmer. He died when I was a small boy. Except for a fleeting memory of a sick man, I've only seen him through the eyes of others. According to my father, he had a saying about the rain -- something like "We'll get it when we need it." Now I used to wonder about that statement; some others have thought it ridiculous. But the older I've got and the more I've thought about it, the more it makes sense to me. If I could I would ask him what he meant. I think he would say something like "It's not the parched ground, the withered crops or the desire of man that determines when we need rain. It is the good pleasure of God."****

'To Him' suggests purpose and completion. It points to His glory. All things are not only by Him and through Him -- they are to Him. "...all things were created by him, and for him." He made this world for Himself, for His own pleasure and His own glory -- "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." He is the purpose of all things; He is the completion of all things. To God be the glory, great things He hath done.

When we see God as He is -- high and lifted up -- we see man as he is -- undone and unclean. We need to restore integrity to and through our view of God.

O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art.*****

* John W. Robbins in his introduction to Gordon H. Clark's Predestination
** J. Vernon McGee on Through the Bible Radio, 1 July 2008
*** R. L. Vaughn, 1992
**** Jer. 14:22 - Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not thou he, O LORD our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made all these things. Matt. 5:45 - That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
***** Carl Gustaf Boberg (1859-1940), Translated by Stuart K. Hine

A picture is worth a thousand words

Where All Baptists Are In Total Agreement

More on truth categories

Excerpts from Categories of truth vs. categories of exegetical certainty by A. Philip Brown

"Dr. David Innes of Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco, CA, has done more than anyone I know to provide a practical framework for determining legitimate applications of the doctrine of separation...The two primary strengths in Dr. Innes' chart I see are, first, he clearly recognizes that not all doctrine is equally important or grounds for separation...Second, Dr. Innes recognizes the importance of integrating doctrinal distinctions into his application of the doctrine of separation...The first problem I see with this chart is that it confuses or mixes categories of truth with categories of interpretive certainty (cols. 1-3) and personal preference (col. 4). There is no category of truth that is "not important" (col. 3) or "absolutely immaterial" (col. 4)

"A Revised Chart: Categories of Interpretive Certainty
"I have attempted to address some of the weaknesses of Dr. Innes's chart in Appendix B. Rather than distinguishing categories of truth, I believe we need to distinguish categories of exegetical certainty regarding our understanding or interpretation of biblically revealed truth.

"Category 1: The Fundamentals of Faith and Practice
"Operating within that sort of a hermeneutical framework, we still need some criterion for distinguishing categories of interpretive certainty. Historically that criterion has been consensus. With regard to Category 1, these are matters which historical investigation demonstrates have been the consensual interpretive conclusions of the Christian Church. By "consensual" conclusions I am not appealing directly to the Vincentian formula--what has everywhere, always, and by all been believed (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est)--since it seems, without careful definition, to lead to a reductionistic rather than a truly catholic faith. Instead, I am thinking of the implications of the church being the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

"Categories 2-4: The Adiaphora that Divide
"To Category 2 belong those doctrines which are the stuff of systematic theology and the practices that derived from our conclusions regarding lifestyle issues. I would place much of the debate over how the Old and New Covenants relate (classic dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, covenantal approaches, theonomic approaches) in Category 2 Principles. Many of the life-related conclusions that flow from the previously entioned systems belong to Category 2 Practices. For example, though I am a strongly committed sabbatarian (Lord's Day transition included), I regard this as a Category 2 issue.

"Admittedly many interpretations are inferential in nature; therefore, the distinction between Categories 2 and 3 is not as clear as between Categories 1 and 2-4. However, practically we all know that theological consensus does not equal affiliational consensus. There are as many stripes of Arminians as there are stripes of Calvinists or Lutherans.

"I can't escape the irony that despite our united allegiance to the fundamentals, the non-fundamentals often loom larger in our considerations of Christian fellowship and unity than do the essentials. Frankly, I rejoice in the spiritual edification and theological cross-pollination that gatherings such as this provide. No, I don't long for a nondenominational ecumenicity even based on the fundamentals. But I do long, especially along the boundaries that divide our respective theological and affiliational communities, for greater willingness to listen to one another and learn from each others strengths."

The entire article made be read at Sharper Iron here and here.

Categories of truth

The theological "triage" idea and terminology may be unique to Albert Mohler. But over the years different folks have posited similar ideas about arranging "categories of truth". Here are three.

Categories of Truth We Teach and Preach by David Innes (pastor of Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco):
Very Clear: To deny these truths is to deny the meaning of words. Such doctrines would include: the Virgin Birth, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Deity of Christ, etc.
Logical Conclusions: These truths are drawn by inference from Category 1. Such truths would include: Immersion=Baptism, anything else is just getting wet; the form of church government congregational vs. presbyterian; standards in music, etc.
Informed and Uninformed opinions: Such matters come from one's own personal walk and study. These would include the Textual questions, Sunday Schools, Head Covering for Women, etc.
Personal preferences: Such matters would include: robed choirs, church dinners, etc.

Walter Martin, adapted slightly by someone else:
Essential: These are things that if you deny, you're not Christian. These are things such as monotheism, diety of Christ, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc. (roughly the "very clear" above).
Very Important: These might be called "aberrant" if they are denied, and would include things that if denied, would not necessarily qualify as a heresy, but would likely prevent us from keeping fellowship.
Peripheral: personal preferences; e.g. Choir robes, etc.

Author/originator unknown:
"Die, Fight, Fuss". There are some things we should die for and some we should fight about. Then there are some that we might fuss about, but we certainly wouldn't die for or fight for them.

Theological triage -- good or bad idea?

Below you will find excerpts from A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity by Albert Mohler. Click on the link to read the entire article on his blog. I would like to get my readers' feedback on Mohler's Theological Triage. Is it a good idea or a bad one? Or perhaps one you view with indifference?

"A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world's framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates.

"First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture...

"The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.

"Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism...

"Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church...

"We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the 'treasure' that has been entrusted to us."