I’ve been a fan of the English Standard Version for many
years. I currently own 7 print editions for various purposes, one of them being
the Study Bible. Our regular readers know that I’m not typically a fan of doing
innovative things with the Bible, such as producing “green” or “emerging”
versions. However, taking the best study Bible ever produced and making it
available on my cell phone- I’m all for that!
OliveTree Bible Software has done this. “The ESV Study
Bible on your mobile device includes all text, features, notes, images, and
supplemental materials of the print version, plus the easy interface of
BibleReader and and the convenience and portability of handheld use.” I should
make it clear that I’m reviewing the software for my Blackberry Curve. Every
brand of phone is different and users will encounter different experiences
depending on their phone. There are even some navigation features I don’t have
because I’m on Blackberry.
Installation:
The process for installation isn’t simple, but it’s also not
too challenging. First, the user is required to download the free BibleReader
software that is phone-type specific. This software is essentially the browser
through which the user can view the ESV Study Bible as well as other OliveTree
products (some are free!). Then, the user must purchase and download three ESV
files to the computer and transfer them to their Blackberry via USB. Once
everything is in place, BibleReader should recognize the Study Bible as part of
the library and make it available for use.
Functionality:
The three files are the ESV, ESV notes, and ESV Study Bible.
When the user clicks on “Library,” each of the files or volumes appears. This
can be a bit confusing, since in print form it’s all one book. By clicking on
the ESV, the user is directed to the Bible. Annotations are present throughout
the text and when clicked take the user to the notes volume. However, I haven’t
found a way to access the Study Bible from within the basic ESV volume. The
user must go back to the “Library” option and find the volume there. This lack
of integration is a bit frustrating, but may be a limitation of the Blackberry
OS. Maps and charts are available from the Study Bible’s Table of Contents, but
they too are not integrated with the text. So if the user is reading about the
Ark of the Covenant, they may have no idea that there is an illustration
available.
The software has a thorough search feature that can be
defined to the whole Bible or just one testament, and can search exact phrases
or partial variations. There is an “Advanced search” option, but when I’ve
clicked it a message tells me the option is not supported with this book. I
don’t really mind, since the basic search options are more than satisfactory
for a cell phone. There are also preference options available to change the
fonts, colors, scrolling methods and QWERTY shortcuts.
Support:
Like most new software, there are bugs to be worked out.
When I first installed the software, the search feature would not work. I had a
couple different error messages that I reported on the OliveTree message
boards. The staff there is quick to respond and very helpful- looking through a
few of the posted issues will attest to this. I also noticed that after this
problem occurred, all of my Blackberry actions slowed down. I uninstalled
BibleReader and my Blackberry went back to normal. It took about a week for the
problem to be resolved. An updated version of BibleReader was released. After I
downloaded it, everything worked as it seems it should.
Overall, the ESV Study Bible software by OliveTree is very worthwhile.
For those who have held the Study Bible, it’s a lot of weight to carry. To have
all of that information in my pocket is extremely valuable. I expect that other
cell phone platforms are better, such as the iPhone, but there really isn’t
much more I could ask for on my Blackberry.
Jim Congdon is concerned about recent messianic Jewish
leaders who have been imposing Torah-centered living as normative on their
congregations. He argues that Christ is the culmination of the Law of Moses
based on Matthew 5:17-48 and Romans 10:4.
Whether from the Reformed or from the Jewish Torah-observer,
attempting to use Matthew 5:17-20 to argue for obligation to the law proves too
much. Jesus declares that the entire law remains in force. The Reformed
distinctions between moral, civil and ceremonial laws cannot be sustained
against the weight of Jesus’ words. For the Jewish insistence on applying all
the laws requiring the Temple, priesthood and
presence in the land
of Israel, this also
proves too much, since a number of these commands are explicitly disregarded in
the New Testament.
Jesus must be saying that the Mosaic Law remains completely
in force in an eschatological sense. “Jesus is claiming that he is the climactic
figure of history, and that the Law and Prophets remain in force in Himself.”
Just as a student graduates from one grade to another and his past grades are
not abolished, so is the Law not abolished, but fulfilled in Christ as he ushered in a new age of salvation
history.
In the six commands that follow, Jesus set himself up as the
new Torah-giver. He alone is the one who has authority to say of the Mosaic
Law, “You have heard it said… but I say unto you.” Jim Congdon points to the
Transfiguration as an illustration of this: Jesus met with the only other two
men to receive God’s revelation on the mountain, Moses and Elijah. “At Sinai
God revealed himself with ‘I am Yahweh,’ and then gave the Ten Words to Moses;
but here and now, God introduces his son, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ and then
says, ‘Listen to him.’”
In Romans 10:4, Paul declares that “Christ is the end of the
Law.” Some argue that end refers to the goal, and so the Mosaic Law points to
Christ and is still in force on Christians today. However, Paul seems to be
saying that Christ is both the “goal” and “end” of the Law. Paul is saying the
same thing that Christ said- Christ is the culmination of the Law.
Paul repeatedly declares that Christians are no longer under
the Law (Rom 6:14-15, 7:6, Gal 2:19, 4:5). The new age that Christ brought to
bear replaced the age of the Law (Gal. 3:19-4:5). There are examples of
believers who follow the Law in Acts, but they do so out of liberty, not of
obligation (1 Cor 9:20). Yet, believers are still expected to comply with the
Law’s moral demands (Rom 8:4, 13:8-10, Gal 5:14). Specifically, we are called
to “fulfill” the Law, but not actually to “do” the Law. We fulfill the Law by
walking with the Spirit in love, and it is credited to us as though we had done
all the requirements of the Law. “Believers have been set free from the Law
(the ‘moral’ law is included, v.7), so that they now serve God in the new way
of the Spirit rather than in the old way of the written code.”
Newsweek's cover story last week read "The Religious Case For Gay Marriage." Inside, Lisa Miller's article "Our Mutual Joy" attempted to argue that the Bible actually supports gay marriage.
Two very insightful responses have already gone up from Al Mohler and John Mark Reynolds. Rather than responding myself, I will simply point you to them.
Oxford's latest version of their Junior Dictionary has undergone a major revision. In order to reflect the changing times, many words having to do with religion (specifically Christianity), and with a rural setting (such as certain kinds of flowers and trees) are being omitted and replaced with words like "blog" and "MP3 player." OUP says:
"When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of
examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in
semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has
changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don't go to Church as
often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism,
which is why some words such as "Pentecost" or "Whitsun"
would have been in 20 years ago but not now."
So here's the logic: Kids are using blogs and MP3 players now, and they're not going to church anymore. So, they know what a blog is, but they don't know what a Bishop is or what Pentecost is. Therefore we are going to remove the definitions of words they don't know and replace them with the definitions of words they do. This strikes me as one of those examples of someone trying to be relevant and ending up being completely irrelevant. I didn't even grow up on blogs and MP3 players, but I would never think to look in a dictionary to find out what something new and "techy" means. An example from my own childhood in the early 90's might be "CD" or "e-mail." I knew what those things were (even though at the time I didn't have e-mail and I still listened to cassette tapes), I didn't need the dictionary for words like that. I needed the dictionary to tell me what "marzipan" and "budgerigar" mean.
Aside from that, there's also a real concern among educators in Britain about losing touch with their country's long, rich, and very religious heritage.
Some people have argued that historical theology has little
relevance to postmoderns, therefore the church must reflect the current culture
to reach them. William Henard contends that historical theology is still
relevant, using Jonathan Edwards as an example. For one, though Edwards did not
face every manifestation of sin present today, he did encounter the same basic
sins. Second, many of today’s youth and leaders are drawn to the Reformers, as
evidenced in Colin Hansen’s Young,
Restless, Reformed. Since sinners now seem to be in the hands of the
Emergent church, Edwards must join the conversation.
Though no simple definition for Emergent exists, they do
have a “consistent model of inconsistency.” Henard makes use of Ed Setzer’s
tri-fold definition of Emergent: relevants, reconstructionists and
revisionists. His focus is primarily on the revisionists, though he recognizes
not everyone necessarily fits into one group or another.
There are several areas where Edwards would affirm the
Emergent church. For innovation, Edwards would appreciate the Emergents’s use of
music to help inspire people’s relationship with God through experiencing his
presence. Edwards was one of the first in his day to make use of hymns as he
believed it connects beauty and excellence with our understanding of God.
Edwards saw the value of aiding itinerant preachers in the
midst of the revival occurring during his time. Though he warned George
Whitefield about emotional impulses, he allowed Whitefield to preach four times
at his church and let him stay at his house. Many pastors at the time were
uncomfortable with such preachers, but Edwards defended them. Thus Edwards
would be in favor of unusual methods of evangelism as long as the Gospel is in
tact.
Breaking from typical Protestant hermeneutics, Edwards
argued for a spiritual sense of Scripture. He believed that Christians are
occupied by the Holy Spirit and therefore spiritual understanding of the
Scriptures develops as a product of God’s grace apart from having a simply
rational understanding. Thus, Edwards would affirm the desire of Emergents to
partake in experiential praise.
One of the reasons Emergents are drawn to Jesus is his
narrative preaching style. Edwards also often used illustrations relevant to
people’s every day lives for the sake of their understanding. When his
preaching changed contexts, he adapted from reading a written manuscript to
using an outline that allowed for more extemporaneous preaching.
Edwards would also affirm the missional approach to cultural
engagement. Noting the specific needs of youth in his area, Edwards began a
Bible study just for the youth- an uncommon practice in his day. He used
whatever common ground available between him and non-believers as opportunities
to teach the gospel, including experiences of death and suicide.
There are, of course, a number of areas where Edwards would
not agree with the Emergent church. Edwards held to the traditional Protestant
view of Scripture: that it is inspired by God as His revelation and therefore
it is completely accurate. He would caution those in the Emergent church who
put the authority of a conversing community above the authority of Scripture.
He would condemn Brian McLaren’s suggestions that the Bible has evolved over
time and does not hold all the answers.
Edwards’ high view of theology is apparent throughout his
sermons and writings and he understood it as the basis for Christian living and
our understanding of culture. Some in the Emergent church seem to believe there
can be right behavior without right beliefs and that culture should interpret
theology. Edwards would stand against them and argue for the centrality of
theology.
Some in the Emergent church have shifted from a proclamation
style of preaching to one of conversation and dialogue. Though Edwards would
agree with much of their narrative approach, he would contend for the necessity
of proclaiming the truth as the central element of worship.
Henard claims that the Emergent emphasis on conversation in
evangelism is rooted in a fear of confrontation. There appears to be a
willingness to let people find their way into the community without a clear
commitment to the truth of the gospel. Edwards believed that conversation
happened at once and that there are several steps in the process. He regularly
invited people to a salvation offered by Christ, recognizing that a decision
must be made.
Finally, Edwards held that character is a mark that
distinguishes Christians from the world around them. He argued against the
notion that Christians should become a part of culture in order to be relevant.
He would be critical of those who appear to be influenced by the world rather
than having an influence on the world.
The preacher at the church I attended today read this, and it struck me as an excellent meditation piece. It's from a sermon by S.M. Lockridge...
He's
enduringly strong. He's entirely sincere. He's eternally steadfast.
He's immortally graceful. He's imperially powerful. He's impartially
merciful. That's my King. He's God's Son. He's the sinner's saviour.
He's the centerpiece of civilization. He stands alone in Himself. He's
honest. He's unique. He's unparalleled. He's unprecedented. He's
supreme. He's pre-eminent. He's the grandest idea in literature. He's
the highest personality in philosophy. He's the supreme problem in
higher criticism. He's the fundamental doctrine of historic theology.
He's the carnal necessity of spiritual religion. That's my King. He's
the miracle of the age. He's the superlative of everything good that
you choose to call Him. He's the only one able to supply all our needs
simultaneously. He supplies strength for the weak. He's available for
the tempted and the tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He's the
Almighty God who guides and keeps all his people. He heals the sick. He
cleanses the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharged debtors. He
delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He
serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent
and He beautifies the meek. That's my King. Do you know
Him? Well, my King is a King of knowledge. He's the wellspring of
wisdom. He's the doorway of deliverance. He's the pathway of peace.
He's the roadway of righteousness. He's the highway of holiness. He's
the gateway of glory. He's the master of the mighty. He's the captain
of the conquerors. He's the head of the heroes. He's the leader of the
legislatures. He's the overseer of the overcomers. He's the governor of
governors. He's the prince of princes. He's the King of kings and He's
the Lord of lords. That's my King. His office is
manifold. His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is
limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His love never changes. His Word
is enough. His grace is sufficient. His reign is righteous. His yoke is
easy and His burden is light. I wish I could describe Him to you . . .
but He's indescribable. That's my King. He's incomprehensible, He's
invincible, and He is irresistible. I'm coming to tell
you this, that the heavens of heavens can't contain Him, let alone some
man explain Him. You can't get Him out of your mind. You can't get Him
off of your hands. You can't outlive Him and you can't live without
Him. The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't
stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't
get their testimonies to agree about Him. Herod couldn't kill Him.
Death couldn't handle Him and the grave couldn't hold Him. That's my
King.
I wasn’t able to attend Jim’s paper this year, but he was
kind enough to give me a copy anyway. This could be viewed as especially
generous after I kept hassling him about Ty Cobb’s lifetime batting being
incorrect on his blog. But now that it is fixed, I can recommend his blog
without exception. Go read it for a lot of wisdom and a little folly.
The evidential problem of evil suggests that if God is
all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, then evil should not exist. Two popular
theodicies (reasons for the existence of evil), free will and soul making, are rarely used together. For whatever reason, most apologists see
them in opposition to one another. Spiegel argues that they are actually dependent
on one another, that they have much in common and that they should be used
together in answering the problem of evil.
The free will theodicy puts all the blame for evil on
humans, arguing that God gave people freedom and this freedom is of such immense
worth as to justify the existence of evil. This view usually sees the goal of freedom as the development of genuine love toward God and others.
For the soul making theodicy, evil exists for the purpose of
shaping us into greater conformity to God’s likeness. God created us in His
image, but there are some virtues that really cannot be developed without the
experience of evil. These include qualities such as courage, forgiveness, and
perseverance.
Both theodicies are basically means-ends explanations for
evil, and are actually mutually dependent. Spiegel summarizes his argument: “In
order for human freedom to necessitate the possibility (or reality) of evil the
free will theodicy must specify the desirability of certain evil-contingent
free choices, the good of which can be adequately accounted for only relative
to the end of good moral character. On the other hand, this end-in-view of the
soul-making theodicy—character development—is only achievable given the
possibility of free will, since this is a pre-condition for moral agency and
the requisite choices involved in acquiring second-order virtues.”
These theodicies each have similar objections with
similar answers. Some have suggested that real evil is not necessary for
character development. The problem is that illusory evil would only result in
genuine character. Similarly, some suggest that only an illusion of free will
in necessary to bring about genuine love. However, just like in the case of
soul-making, virtual freedom only results in virtual love. Explanations for natural evil show where the
theodicies diverge, but are still complimentary. The free will theodicy
explains natural evil as the result of the Fall of humankind, while soul-making
explains it as part of the evil allowed in order to shape people into God’s
likeness. In this way, the soul-making theodicy is more teleological. So while
one theodicy may be preferred over the other, they are in fact mutually
dependent and complimentary.
I was going to write a summary of G.K. Beale's excellent lecture that argued for inerrancy based on the book of Revelation, but Jim Hamilton beat me to it.
Here's a teaser:
This year’s Crossway Lecture at ETS was presented by G. K. Beale.
Beale argued that Inerrancy is not a scholastic theological deduction
made by interpreters of the Bible, but rather that it is an exegetical
observation of a theological deduction that at least one biblical author has already made within the text of the Bible itself. Citing the logic of innerancy:
God is true and trustworthy, and he never lies, deceives, or makes mistakes.
The Bible is God’s revelation of himself.
Therefore the Bible never lies, deceives, or makes mistakes.
Beale argued that John has already made this argument and drawn this
conclusion for us in the book of Revelation. The gist of Beale’s
argument went like this:
Revelation 3:14 presents Jesus identifying himself as “the Amen, the faithful and true witness.”
Mark Wittmer contends that many of the “new” ideas proposed by Brian McLaren were addressed 85 years ago by J. Gresham Machen in his classic work Christianity and Liberalism (1923, Eerdmans). His paper contrasted the teaching of McLaren and Machen in six important areas.
Living like Jesus is more important than believing in him.
McLaren suggests that what people believe is of little importance and likely not relevant to our salvation. What is important is right action as modeled by Jesus. McLaren believes that some people (conservatives) use John 14:6 (“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me”) to mean that Jesus stands in the way of those desiring truth and life. According to McLaren, what Jesus really meant to say is that he is the way to live.
The liberals of Machen’s day saw doctrine as divisive and instead emphasized ethics. Machen replied that Christ is not merely an “example of faith” but is “primarily the object of faith.” He argued that the Christian faith is not faith like Jesus but in Jesus. He believed we should look not to “the example of Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus” as the emphasis of our faith.
People are basically good and free from original sin.
McLaren is not clear about his belief on this subject, but he wrote the foreword to Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity and endorsed Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing, both of which deny original sin. When asked in a radio interview if he believes salvation is by grace through faith alone, McLaren answered yes, “we simply accept our acceptance by our creator.” Lacking from his response is the idea that we need a redeemer, and he sounds as though he believes salvation is an “opt-out plan” rather than an “opt-in plan.”
Machen wrote, “According to modern liberal, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin.” He argued that the teaching the truth about sin is necessary to teaching the gospel. “Without the consciousness of sin, the whole gospel will seem to be an idle tale.”
Objection to Penal Substitution
McLaren denies the penal part of substitution. He said, “Having an innocent person die for guilty people did not seem to solve the ‘injustice’ of forgiveness—it only seemed to add to the injustice.”
The liberals of Machen’s day held the same belief, insisting that a loving God would forgive without penalty. Machen saw that their view resulted from a light view of sin. He also clarified that God did not punish someone else for our sin, but that he takes it on himself and becomes our sacrifice.
Unite Christians and non-Christians and emphasize our common journey with God
McLaren claims that “the thrust of Jesus’ message is about inclusion—shocking, scandalous inclusion.” He continued, “To be truly inclusive, the kingdom must exclude exclusive people.” He suggests that Christianity was not created by Jesus to be exclusive based on belief.
Machen affirmed the brotherhood of man, but also pointed out that our brotherhood as Christians is far more intimate and he reserved the term brother for those who are redeemed.
Inclusivism: extends salvation to include those who have not believed in Christ.
McLaren “suspects” that a person does not need to call themselves a Christian to follow Jesus. He suggests that Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus do not need to leave their religions to enter the kingdom.
Machen replied to the liberals that taught this that the Christian gospel demands exclusive devotion to Christ. “Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but it was only through Christ.”
Focus on this life rather than the afterlife
McLaren believes that preoccupation with hell tempts us to devalue and trivialize life before death. He’s concerned that we are so focused on avoiding hell that God’s will on earth is forgotten.
Machen saw this view as rooted in the over-emphasis on applied Christian ethics. He saw the importance of doing God’s will today, but also understood that our ethic fits within a larger Christian framework of God’s dealings with humanity.
Conclusion
McLaren does differ from the liberalism of Machen’s day. He does not deny the miraculous or supernatural. So in contrast to them, he affirms the existence of God, diety of Jesus and historicity of the resurrection. But like them he makes ethics more important than doctrine and reason more important than revelation.
