The canon of scripture

Which writings belong in the bible and which do not? 

This is an important question given the importance of scripture to the Christian.  To add or subtract from God’s word would be to prevent God’s people from obeying Him fully.

The Old Testament Canon

The idea of preserving writings began with the 10 commandments and constituted the covenant between God and His people.  More writings were added (by Moses) and deposited in the Ark of the Covenant.  Joshua added to it.  He must have been aware of the command no to do so in Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 so to add to it he must have been convinced he did so under God’s authority.  Others later added more - principally prophets - right up until the last prophet (Malachi) and the last recorded writings (Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther) were made in approximately 435 BC.  Jews didn’t stop writing at this time but no other subsequent writings were added to the canon.  Why?

Other Jewish literature indicates the belief that divinely authoritative words from God had ceased, and that their recorded history since Artaxerxes (Esther’s time) wasn’t deemed worthy of equal credit.  Jesus didn’t contest the Old Testament canon with the Jewish leaders, nor did New Testament authors quote from other sources claiming divine authority.

The Roman Catholic Church has included other books in the Old Testament – The Apocrypha – but these are excluded by Protestants (and Jews).  When Jerome translated the bible into Latin (The Vulgate, AD 404) he included these books but noted they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church”.  Most of the apocrypha was only formally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church a millennium later, in 1546, at the Council of Trent and this in response to Luther’s reformation.  These books support many Roman Catholic teachings – e.g. prayer for the dead.  Also they contain clear historical errors.

The New Testament Canon

Writing of scriptures primarily occurs with God’s great acts in redemptive history.  The Old Testament closes with the expectation of the Messiah to come.  It is of no surprise that the next scripture written recorded this event: The coming of the Messiah.  Thus the New Testament contains primarily writings of the apostles, who were gifted with the Holy Spirit to recall accurately the words and deeds of Jesus, and to interpret them rightly for subsequent generations (John 14:26, 16:13-14).  Those who held the office of apostle claimed an authority equal to that of Old Testament prophets – an authority to speak and write God’s words (2 Peter 3:2).  To lie to the apostles was to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) and to God (Acts 5:4).

Peter was willing to place Paul’s letters “with other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16) and Paul quotes from both the Old Testament (Deut. 25:4) and Jesus (Luke 10:7) in 1 Tim 5:17-18.  Paul is apparently quoting from Luke’s gospel and calling it scripture, i.e. part of the canon. 

Most New Testament books are written by apostles but five are not – Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews and Jude. (James was considered an apostle in 1 Con 15:7 and Gal 1:19 and performed the functions of an apostle).  Mark, Luke and Acts were accepted by the church very early – probably because of the authors’ close associations with apostles – Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul and Jude with James – and the fact he was the brother of Jesus.  Hebrew’s authorship is unknown.  Some accepted the book on the basis of an assumption that Paul wrote it.  Others accepted it on the intrinsic qualities of the book itself.  The book is self-attesting.

The New Testament canon seems to have been reached on a combination of factors – apostolic endorsement, consistency with the rest of scripture and the perception of a writing as being “God breathed” on the part of the overwhelming majority of believers.  These factors led the early church to decide if a work was in fact God’s words (through a human author) and therefore worthy of inclusion in the canon.  Lists dated AD 367 and 397 contain the exact 27 New Testament books we have today and show the church in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean agreeing on the New Testament canon.  All other documents in the early church either contain explicit disclaimers of anointed status or include some doctrinal aberrations that clearly make them unworthy of inclusion in the bible.  

Is that it?

Should we expect more writings to be added to the canon?  Hebrews 1, 2 do not expect any further writings as they describe a final revelation of Jesus “in these last days” of this period of redemptive history.  The New Testament closes with the expectation of a coming of Jesus – just as the Old Testament closed.  Nobody now has the same divine authority to write additional scripture – nor will anyone.  The canon is closed.

Questions for personal application

Why is it important to your Christian life to know which writings are God's words and which are not?  How would your relationship with God be different if you had to look for his words that were scattered among all the writings of Christians throughout church history? How would your Christian life be different if God's words were contained not only in the Bible but also in the official declarations of the church throughout history?

Have you had doubts or questions about the canonicity of any of the books of the Bible?  What caused those questions? What should one do to resolve them?

Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and members of other cults have claimed present-day revelations from God that they count equal to the Bible in authority.  What reasons can you give to indicate the falsity of those claims?  In practice, do these people treat the Bible as an authority equal to the other “revelations”?

If you have never read any parts of the Old Testament Apocrypha, perhaps you would want to read some sections.  Do you feel you can trust these writings in the same way you trust Scripture?  Compare the effect these writings have on you with the effect Scripture has on you.  You might want to make a similar comparison with some writings from a collection of books called the New Testament Apocrypha, or perhaps with the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an.  Is the spiritual effect of these writings on your life positive or negative?  How does it compare with the spiritual effect the Bible has on your life?

What's going to change after reading this chapter?

Right now I don't think this is going to result in a changed behaviour or anything like that.  I've never really questioned or doubted the canon of scripture, but now I have a background knowledge of how and why we arrived at the bible as we know it today.  This will help in the future to guard against any errors that may be suggested - altering the scriptures or questioning the authenticity of some or all of the bible.

Suffering, grace, mercy and justice

Jesus was asked a question about human suffering (Luke 13:1-5).  In his answer Jesus includes a second type of suffering.  Suffering at the hands of fellow humans (Herod slaughtering jews) and being caught up in accidents (natural disasters). 

Jesus’ answer is stark, abrupt and crushing:  “Unless you repent you too will die”.  The question is how could God allow these things to happen, and underneath is a deeper issue – How can God allow innocent people to suffer?

Jesus’ answer in effect says “You’re asking the wrong question.  You should be asking “Why don’t I suffer as well?”  We know we are sinners but reckon there’s also enough good in us that we don’t deserve to suffer and in fact are owed mercy and grace.  We expect them.  We take mercy and grace for granted.

God in the norm is repeatedly merciful, so we tend to expect God to be merciful.  The next step is short and easy: We demand it.  When God isn’t merciful we are angry against Him, cry “It isn’t fair” and accuse Him of injustice.  We forget that with sin we all forfeit the right to the gift of life.  God owes us nothing; we owe Him everything.  If He allows a drunk driver to mow me down tomorrow I cannot claim injustice.

Justice and Mercy
Justice and mercy are different.  We all suffer injustices at the hand of other human beings.  But nobody has ever suffered the slightest injustice from God.  Others may mistreat me.  God doesn’t.  That God permits another person to mistreat me is just of God.  God would be perfectly justified in throwing me in prison for the remainder of my life for a crime I didn’t commit.  Or, to put it another way, God is justified in taking my life.  I may be innocent before other people bug I am guilty before God.

The divine prerogative

We often blame God for permitting injustices done to us and feel He has not been gracious enough.  We think we deserve more grace.

But it is impossible to deserve grace.  Grace is by definition undeserved.  Only justice can be deserved.  God isn’t obliged to be merciful.  Mercy and grace must be voluntary or they are no longer mercy and grace.  God regularly states “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (Ex 33:19).  This is the divine prerogative.  God has the supreme right of executive clemency.

Say ten people equally sin and God punishes five and is merciful to five.  Is this injustice?  No!!  Nobody received injustice!  We assume He must be equally merciful to everybody.  Why?  God is never obligated to treat all people equally.  If he grants mercy to one person that doesn’t give another claim on his mercy.  Mercy is voluntary.

Nor is God’s grace infinite.  God is infinite and God is gracious but he has not made his grace infinite.  He has set limits on his patience and forbearance.  One day he will judge the whole world.  With our tendency to take grace for granted it is no surprise that the God who made and knows us on occasions reminds us of the dreadful power of his justice.  Don’t forget the gravity of sin.  Remember that I am holy.

Questions posed by the book

1. In what ways does God’s justice frighten you?  In what ways does it comfort you?
   
   
2. What is your response when you realise that you deserve to die because of your sin?
   
   
3. What is your response when you realise that God’s justice demanded Christ’s death for you?
   
   
4. In what ways has God demonstrated his mercy to you?

Holy Justice

“The holiness of God” (By R. C. Sproul) is a classic that I’ve been reading courtesy of it being a free download from the Desiring God website a while back.   Chapter 6 is entitled “Holy justice” and deals with passages that are challenging and down right offensive.  The chapter obviously speaks about justice but also covers God’s righteousness, mercy, wrath and grace.

There are some passages in the Old Testament where God seems to be violent, brutal and harsh in the extreme.  Some say the Old Testament God is a different, cruel God and beneath the New Testament God of love.

Nadab and Abihu

The first example tackled is the story of Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, who were struck down by God for offering unauthorised fire (Lev 10:1-2) and is attributed to God’s wrath and judgement. 

Their instructions had been clear.  The tabernacle and all its vessels had been made to precise specifications.  The procedures were clearly laid out for the priests.  God declared the altar to be “most holy to the Lord” (Ex 30:9-10).  For offering unauthorized fire they were struck dead on the spot.

They had acted in clear defiance – a blatant act of rebellion.  It was treason against God as they profaned the most holy place.  They disobeyed.  God acted in justice.  They have no defence and we can understand God acting in justice.  But does the punishment go beyond the crime – and beyond justice into injustice?  Was it too harsh?  What about Genesis 18:25 which says the judge of all the earth will do right?

In the bible God’s judgements are always according to his righteousness.  They are never unfair, whimsical or tyrannical.  God cannot be unjust because his justice is holy.  Yet this feels harsh.

Uzzah

Uzzah reached out to stop the ark from falling off an ox-cart (1 Chron 13:7-11).  Again this offends our sense of justice.  Uzzah acts instinctively; not in some premeditated manner.  Yet God killed him on the spot too.

Again if we look at the facts, Uzzah is guilty.  As a Kohathite he couldn’t look at the ark, much less touch it (Num 4:15, 17-20).  The ark was made for carrying, not tossing onto the back of a cart.  But crucially, Uzzah presumed his hand was less polluted than the earth.  It’s not the earth that is in rebellion against God, however.  It’s not a touch from the earth that God wishes to prevent.  It’s humans touching the ark – those creatures of creation in rebellion against God – that is forbidden.  Uzzah is not innocent.  He wasn’t punished without warning or without violating a law.  This wasn’t whimsical but its suddenness and finality are unusual, surprising and shocking.

Justice and Divine Righteousness

Uzzah’s story is a story of divine justice.  It is not an example of divine mercy.   The bible links God’s justice to divine righteousness.  His justice is always an expression of His holy character and this means it conforms to some rules or a standard.  The ultimate standard is God’s own holy character.  What God does (external righteousness) is always consistent with who God is (internal righteousness), i.e. the moral excellence of his character.  As a holy God he is utterly incapable of an unholy act.  He killed Uzaah, Nadab and Abihu (and Ananias and Sapphira) in righteous acts of judgement.  He is just.

When God announced to Abraham that he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah Abraham protested, fearing the innocent righteous would be punished along with the wicked.  “Far be it from you… to kill the righteous with the wicked… Will not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:23-25).  Abraham barters with God, and the inference from the passage is that if God had found just one innocent person in the cities he would have spared the entire city.  But the towns were destroyed.  God did right.  No innocent people were punished.  He never condemns the innocent, or clears the guilty.

Mercy

God does not only act with justice.  He also acts with mercy.  Mercy is not justice but nor is it injustice.  Injustice violates righteousness.  Mercy manifests grace and kindness and is often nonjustice – delayed justice. In mercy justice may be delayed but it will eventually be administered.

Many state that there is a difference between the tones of the two testaments.  Take capital punishment, for example.  There is a substantial list of crimes that in the Old Testament are punishable by death – murder, striking or cursing parents, rape, false prophecy, false witness in a capital trial, etc, etc.  This seems much more severe than the New Testament God of Love. 

Yet the Old Testament itself is a massive reduction in the list of crimes punishable by death.  The Old Testament is in fact a record of amazing grace!

In creation all sin was punishable by death (Ezek 18:4, Gen 2:17) and the punishment was to be immediate.   When Adam and Eve sinned, they did immediately suffer a spiritual death.  Their sin also warranted an immediate physical death.  But God on that day granted them mercy in terms of the full measure of administering the punishment.  The full measure of God’s justice was delayed so that grace and mercy could be established.

Yet the death penalty was imposed and is still imposed.  Adam and Eve died.  We all will die (unless Christ returns first) because we are all under the death penalty for sin.  We all sit on death row (and that by God’s mercy) awaiting our execution.  Nature – which works under God’s command – is God’s great avenger.  (This paragraph raises questions in my mind).

The conquest of Canaan

When the exodus ended the Israelites entered the land of Canaan in a conquest.  God explicitly commanded the slaughter of men, women and children.  No treaty was permitted to be made and no mercy was to be shown (Deut 7:1-2).  God commanded genocide.  Ethnic cleansing on a scale we have not witnessed.  Some find it hard to believe that God would or could issue such a command but there is an even greater historical precedent – the Flood.   In both cases the assumption is that God wiped out innocent people.  We have already read that God does not punish the innocent and this was again the case in the conquest of Canaan (and in the flood).  Of all the multitudes of women and children living in Canaan none were innocent.  The conquest was an explicit act of righteous judgement on wicked nations.  God made that clear – but also made it clear to the Israelites that they also were not innocent.  God was not destroying a wicked people for the sake of a righteous people.  God gave justice to the Canaanites and mercy to the Jews.  In Deuteronomy 9:4-6 God warns the Israelites to not think they have been given the land because of their righteousness.  No, it is because of their wickedness that they will be driven out.  It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity… Understand then that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to posses, for you are a stiff-necked people.

God makes his point three times that the Israelites are no better than those other nations.  Underlying God’s actions are his holiness.  He moves to punish the evil by the Canaanites, and he moves to prepare a land and a nation for a holy purpose.  God (in a rare move) explained himself (Deut 7:3-6).  God did not choose Israel because they were holy.  He chose them to make them holy.   They were set apart as the means of God’s redemption plan (hence fulfilling his promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).  They were also to be holy in a sense of purification.  The Promised Land was to bring forth the Messiah.  There wasn’t room for any pagan practices.

But here’s the question.  Is it unjust – or evil – to punish all sin with death? Or to put it another way, was it unjust of God to say that Adam and Eve would die?

Divine Authority and Human Sin

In creation God was not obliged to give us the gift of life.  He is not indebted to us.  The gift of life comes by His grace and stands under His divine authority.  The task given to humans in creation is to bear witness to the holiness of God; to be His image bearers.  We are made to be his ambassadors.  Sin forfeits the gift of life.  Is it unjust or evil of God to impose the death penalty for all sin?  To answer yes slanders God, violates his holiness and declares the righteous judge of all the earth as unrighteous.

When I sin I commit treason against God because I am saying His law isn’t good.  His authority doesn’t apply to me.  My judgement is better than His.  I am above His authority and jurisdiction.  I have the right to do what I want, not what He commands me to do.  The slightest sin is defiance, rebellion – a revolution.

More than that, I am his witness.  Look at me and you will see God’s character because I am made in His image.  This is how your creator behaves.  As an image bearer of God I declare to the whole of creation what God is like.  My sin corrupts that image and portrays God as one who is covetous, ruthless, a murder, bitter, etc.  I declare God to be unrighteous, unjust, unholy.  Could I be any more guilty?  Could I commit a more serious crime?  Truly the death penalty fits the crime.

Mystery of mercy

The mystery of sin isn’t that the sinner deserves to die but rather that the sinner – in the average situation – continues to exist.  Why does God permit this ongoing human rebellion?  The truth is that God is long-suffering, patient and slow to anger.  So much so, that when he does act in justice we are shocked and offended by it.  We forget that God’s patience is intended to give us time to repent.  We forget that.  We take grace for granted and assume that God either doesn’t care about our sin, or is powerless to act.  We think we will get away with our rebellion.

Questions

I alluded to some questions previously:  What about Enoch and Elijah?  What about the believers who will still be alive when Jesus returns?  None of these people will die?  How does that sit with the earlier statements “He never condemns the innocent, or clears the guilty.” And “we are all under the death penalty for sin.”?

Well their sins have resulted in a death – the death of Jesus.  But Jesus died for the sins of all, and despite that most of His elect have and will die.  Have Enoch and Elijah escaped or cheated justice?  How come God’s righteousness is not violated by taking them to heaven before receiving their punishment for sin?  God can choose to show mercy to whomever he wants.  Are these examples really showing “super mercy” to specific individuals?  The New Testament makes it clear that there will be believers alive when Jesus returns, so He obviously has no qualms about having more humans avoid death. 

Secondly, if we live only by God’s mercy and under his authority what implications does that have for a human taking the life of another human?  I’m thinking abortion, euthanasia (particularly “assisted suicides”), and – perhaps most challenging – war.   Is there any biblical basis for taking the life of another human being?  I’ll need to look into this later.

The Cross

The chapter of the book tries to show that God’s justice is not whimsical or unwarranted.  It is not overly harsh or injust.  God has reserved for himself the ultimate prerogative, namely that he shows mercy to whomever he wishes.  He may choose to give mercy to one and justice to another and that is his prerogative and does not violate his holiness.  God’s wrath is most evident at calvary.  If God’s wrath shocks, let us be shocked at the cross.  It would have been horrific for God to have punished Jesus – the only truly innocent man – if Jesus had not first willingly taken upon himself the sins of the world.  Once he did that, He became the most vile thing in the sight of the Father.  God poured his wrath on this obscene abomination.  This justice was done for us.  This act of Jesus – for us – shows the majesty of his grace.  At the same time we see the justice and grace, wrath and mercy of God.  All are present.  All are satisfied.  None are denied or contradicted.

The Word Of God

What is meant by the phrase “the Word of God”?  This phrase has several different usages in the bible.

The Word of God as a person: Jesus Christ

There are a few occasions where the phrase “the Word” or “the Word of God” refers to Jesus Christ.   This indicates that among the members of the Trinity it is especially God the Son who in his person as well as in his words has the role of communicating the character of God to us and of expressing the will of God for us.

The Word of God as Speech by God

There are several distinct modes by which the spoken words of God have been encountered.

• God’s Decrees

A decree of God is a word from God that causes something to happen.  Everything was created and is sustained by God’s decrees.  (Hebrews 1:3)

• God’s Words of direct, personal address

There are many, many examples in the bible of God talking directly with people – Adam & Eve (and later, Cain), Abraham, Moses.  In the New Testament Jesus obviously spoke with many people directly. Additionally however, God’s voice was heard four times – Three times by God the Father concerning Jesus (At his baptism, at the transfiguration, and at Palm Sunday) and finally when God the Son spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus. (Saul’s encounter is interesting in that Jesus identifies with the church when he asks Saul why do you persecute me, but this is a matter for future discussion).

It was clear to the hearers of these words that they were the very words of God: Words of absolute divine authority and trustworthy.  To disobey these words would have been to disobey God and therefore sinful.  Although the actual words of God they are also “human” words in that they are spoken in our language.  Some have argued that these words are somehow inferior - less authoritative or true - because human language is itself imperfect and therefore any message conveyed via this medium is also limited in its authority or truthfulness.  However the scriptures do not indicate any limitations in God’s spoken word.

• God’s Words through human lips

Much of the Old Testament is taken up with God speaking to people through prophets.  Again these words are spoken in human language but are in no way diminished.  God gave several warnings both in the old and new testaments (Deuteronomy 18:19,20, 2 Peter 1:20,21) that the words of a prophet are to be taken as His words.  Similarly, anyone falsely claiming to be speaking in the name of God was to be severely punished.  God’s words are serious business, and not to be trifled with.

The Word of God in Written Form (the Bible)

There are a few occasions recorded in the Bible when God wrote words, initially and principally at Mount Sinai when God gave the 10 commandments on two tablets of stone.  Further writing was done by Moses, Joshua, Isaiah and Jeremiah.  In the New Testament Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would help his disciples remember the words which he, Jesus, had spoken.  Paul claimed his words to the Corinthians were “a command of the lord” and Peter validated that Paul’s words were on a par with the “old testament” scriptures (2 Peter 3:15, 16).

The focus of study in Systematic Theology is the Word of God in Written Form.  It is available for study, for public inspection, for repeated examination and as a basis for mutual discussion.  It points us towards God.  The other forms of the Word of God are not available to us in this manner:

• The person of Jesus Christ is no longer with us on earth and so we cannot observe, learn from or imitate him firsthand.
• We do not hear God’s words of decree and thus cannot study them directly, only indirectly through observing their effects.
• If we heard God speak directly, personally to us, would we have the certainty that our understanding, memory and reporting of it would be accurate?  I believe the answer is yes – as those in the bible who heard God directly didn’t have such problems – but would we be able to convince others that God spoke directly to us?  There are some who believe that God has stopped speaking to us through human lips.

Omitted by Grudem

The topic of the word of God is handled specifically only by Grudem.  He mentions that other “general” revelations of God – e.g. through creation – are not the word of God and thus are not included here but will be covered later.  However it seems to me he has entirely excluded another medium of the Word of God – Visions and dreams.  I must figure out why this has been omitted by Grudem.  A novice like me wouldn’t find something that an experienced theologian – and all his readers (the book was first published decades ago and has undergone revisions and reprints) – would just miss.

The Word of God in Visions and Dreams

There are several examples in both testaments of God’s voice being heard by people in visions and dreams – Jacob, Isaiah, Ananias, Peter and John.  This medium for the word of God could therefore be considered within direct, personal address from God.  This seems worth separating out on its own because the bible itself mentions that in the future God will communicate through visions and dreams, and there are countless accounts today – notably from middle eastern countries (and not all from believers) - of people seeing and hearing Jesus in dreams.  Therefore this form of communication appears to still be used today.  However in stating this I have ventured away from studying purely God’s word and this must therefore be treated very carefully – if even deemed acceptable.

Questions for personal application

1 Do you think you would pay more attention if God spoke to you from heaven or through the voice of a living prophet than if he spoke to you from the written words of Scripture?  Do you think your present level of response to the written words of Scripture is an appropriate one?  What positive steps can you take to make your attitude toward Scripture more like the kind of attitude God wants you to have?

I’m not sure!  I suspect not – if I heard God speaking to me directly I may well pay more attention initially but I fear that my attention would drift and wane over time.  I feel my present level of response is not appropriate:  It is inadequate.  I don’t always treat the bible as the very words of God – which they are.  What steps can I take to improve my attitude?  Spend more time in study of the word, i.e. treat it as it deserves.  This will help my approach to it as I read it in a more general basis (e.g. daily reading).

2 When you think about the many ways in which God speaks and the frequency with which God communicates with his creatures through these means, what conclusions might you draw concerning the nature of God and the things that bring delight to Him?

First God issued decrees – and the world came into being.  Then he walked with us and talked with us directly, but when sin entered the world God withdrew but continued to speak directly with individuals.  In order to have more people hear his voice he also began to speak to many through prophets.  Eventually, God returned to earth physically as the God-man Jesus Christ.  Once again we could hear his voice directly – and see the example he set for us.  After Jesus returned to heaven he sent God the Holy Spirit to dwell in our hearts and speak to us by revealing truths to us.

God is a God who wants to be in relationship with us.  God is a God who wants us to know him, honour and follow him by obeying his laws and giving him the glory.  God delights in us drawing closer to him as we obey him.  God was so delighted with Jesus while here on earth that the Father intervened directly from heaven and spoke “This is my Son, with whom I am pleased.  Listen to Him”.  God wanted those present to bring him delight as well, and advised on how best to achieve this – listen to what Jesus was telling them.

What’s going to change after reading this chapter?

My time spent in serious, genuine bible study.  I’m going to make a habit of prayerfully studying the bible.

I'm just like everybody else

It turns out that I can get annoyed over styles of worship, just like everybody else.  This came as a bit of a surprise to me, as I've a pretty broad experience of worship styles and I'm comfortable with a broad range of muscial styles.  Liturgical worship?  Fine by me, I can worship while singing "O Thou the central orb" or "Blessed city heavenly Salem" just the same as while singing "When I survey" or "O to see the dawn".  Heck, why not go all out and sing in latin: I've done my fair share of Sanctus, Gloria and Kyrias - and enjoyed praising God through them.  If you want to swing from the rafters waving a flag - grand, just don't be offended if I decline to join you up there - but you and I can worship together just fine.

So what happened me yesterday?  We were singing a few of the old "classics".  We even used the traditional tunes.  There were quite a few changes to the words but I'm ok with that as they almost always are an improvement.

My problem yesterday was the speed of the hymns!  How can that irk someone so much?

I sort-of-know the bass line to some of the old hymns and I enjoy singing the bass as its better suited to my voice. I don't have to skip out notes because they are too high (or low).  I enjoy hearing harmonies when I sing so I try to provide a few of my own.  The thing is I'm a bit shakey on the notes for some tunes, and without an organ (or another bass standing beside me) to support me I've to make a bit more effort and take time to get my notes right.  Then my heart soars in worship.  But when the music is moving at that pace I'm blown out of the water.  Forget singing the bass line, I reverted to the melody and clung on for dear life to the roller coaster ride that was singing those hymns.  And that's the problem.  I was only singing.  People sing in the bath.  People sing in a crowd at a sports match.  People sing on the X-factor (ok, this is dubious).  Singing's all well and good - and it is good - but I don't just want an endorphine high from singing some song.  I want to worship while I sing, and I couldn't do that yesterday due to the speed.  I couldn't think about the words or the meaning or the sentiment of what I was singing.  It was mechanical.  It was biological.  It wasn't worship :(. 

Is this a fair comment?  Is it unreasonable to want to slow the song down, to take the time to worship?  To me it's like comparing a 60 second sprint through a daily bible verse against a quiet time where you take the time to meet with God.  I wonder if I will get over this, or how will I deal with it as it happens again and again.  I'm learning to cope when a worship leader repeats a song over and over and over and over and over again (another peeve of mine, obviously).  Perhaps I'll get used to blasting through hymns as well. 

I'm going to need some grace.

Introduction to Systematic Theology (ch1)

First I need to define what ST is to provide me with a clear basis and scope for my study.  Gruden defines it as "Any study that answers the question 'What does the whole bible teach us today?'' about any given topic".

It is focused on the collection and summary of the teaching of all the biblical passages on a particular subject.  It attempts to summarise the teaching of scripture in a brief, understandable and very carefully formulated statement.  It should teach something today, therefore application to life is necessary; it is not an academic study for its own sake - one of my dangers to avoid.

In calling it systematic it is organising biblical topics in a way to ensure that all the important topics receive thorough consideration, and allows for cross-checks to ensure consistency and the absence of contradiction.  Consideration is given to complimentary doctrines (topics) to ensure this balanced consideration is achieved.  For example, Christ's deity and humanity will be studied together, to avoid drawing wrong conclusions from an imbalanced study.  These topics are often referred to as doctrines.  A doctrine is what the whole bible teaches us today about some particular topic.

Assumptions
Nobody approaches scripture without any prior views, bias or assumptions.  How one approaches, treats, handles and acts on scripture is driven by underlying assumptions.  Mine are (1) The bible is true, internally consistent -i.e. not contradictory -and the only absolute standard of truth.  (2) God exists and is who the bible says he is.

Why study theology
I've already alluded to my personal desire to know God more and what the bible says on many topics.  This does not mean I will read and accept these books carte blanch.  Rather, I will prayerfully consider the points raised to determine if I find them to be true.

The great commission commanded us to "Go... and make disciples..., teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."  The command is to evangelise, disciple and teach.  I therefore must seek out teaching on what the whole bible says today.

Benefits
Studying God's word brings many benefits (Ps 1v 3, 6)

• Overcome wrong ideas
  I expect that I have many wrong ideas.  By exposing myself to what the whole bible says on a topic I hope, with God's help, to correct as many wrong ideas as I can.
• Able to make better decisions in the future
  Future topics outside of the scope of this reading will require an understanding.  This study should help answer those questions in the future by giving me a good grounding on God and his dealing with humans in the past and present.  I think of the whole "Toronto Blessing" and confusion around it.  Will I finally be able to make a decision about where I stand with regard to that movement?
• Life application
  Studying God's word should have a bearing on my life and help change me for the better!
• Grow as a Christian
  Learning more about God should increase me trust in Him and enable me to praise and obey Him more.

Questions posed at the end of the chapter

In what ways has this chapter changed my understanding of what Systematic Theology is? What was my attitude to study of ST before reading it? What is it now?

For a long time my understanding of ST was that it was in all likelihood beneficial, and a great way to grow spiritually, but looked too much like hard work, frankly, and not particularly exciting or interesting; It sounded to me like a long, dry slog.

Of late, before reading any books, it has become apparent to me that my faith has been stagnating for a long time and the solution is to get to know God more, specifically through spending time studying his word, the Bible. Doing so in a structured manner, with help from those gifted in teaching, seems like a great aid in this process. The thought excites me – not to say the task has got any easier (far from it) – its just that now the prospect of knowing God better and spending time with Him, experiencing Him at work in and through me overcomes, and hugely outweighs any qualms about the effort required. Will I be able to sustain the study? I don't know, but initial enthusiasm is high! Will I find the time to partake in regular study? I will have to, but I'm not sure where from.

What is likely to happen to a church or denomination that gives up learning ST for a generation or longer? Has it been true of your church?

A church that gives up on learning ST for a generation is, I fear, likely to unwittingly allow false doctrine and ideas to creep in, and to lapse into the habit of doing religion for tradition's sake, but without the love, grace and hearing the call of God very clearly. No doubt there will be some who are faithful to God but they may well be lost in the noise of the majority. When I think of churches I have attended I see many examples where tradition has become more important than God. Those churches are slowly emptying.

Are there any doctrines listed in contents for which a fuller understanding would help solve personal difficulty in life at the present time?

I don't know about “personal difficulty” but there are several doctrines that will strongly influence my life, especially around the role of parenthood and being a husband. I am very unclear and undecided about the role of women in the church and hope to firstly, gain an understanding of the arguments against women in the ordained ministry, and secondly make up my mind on the matter. I also see the issue of homosexuality – and specifically within in the ordained ministry – as being something that will become an increasingly important topic due to the pressures and influence of contemporary society upon the church.

What are the spiritual and emotional dangers I need to be aware of in studying ST?

There are two dangers I am acutely aware of: Pride, and treating study as a purely intellectual pursuit. I enjoy learning for learning's sake, and it would be easy for me to build up more “head knowledge” without challenging myself to change and apply God given lessons to my life. The study of God should be seen by others in my life as it effects change in my life. This must happen! The other danger I am aware of is pride as I build up more “head knowledge”; I can be prone to thinking I'm superior or know more about something. Work has taught me that there's always someone in the room who knows more about a topic than you do, and for now I feel that's especially true if the topic is God or theology. I need to guard against this pride.

I need to plan for some steps to guard against these dangers:

• I need to ask myself after studying a topic how can this be applied to my life. What's going to change? I also need someone who can hold me accountable to that – someone who knows me well and sees me regularly enough to witness any change (or lack of it).
• I need to adopt an attitude of humility when studying; I need to commence each time of study with a time of prayer asking God to help me and reminding me that I will only learn what He reveals to me, and not through any great personal ability. Whatever I do learn will be a gift granted from heaven by God and I should be grateful, but remember my station – a saint but also a sinner, just like everybody else.
  
  
  
  
  So.... What's going to change after reading this chapter?
  1. I'm going to find an appropriate verse or two that speaks to my humanity and total reliance upon God to reveal any truths to me - and I'm going to use that as the bookmark in my ST books.  This will remind me to start every study with prayer and a humble attitude.
  2. Each Monday I will plan out when I will do more study in that week.

Introduction

Hello!
I have come to the realisation that my knowledge and understanding of God, theology and things "spiritual" (including points of view on various topics) is at best limited and low - little more than a "Sunday School" knowledge and understanding.  True, I may have heard definitinons and viewpoints on many topics, but without taking time to study and understand I haven't yet really established and understood my own views.  Nor have I a clear understanding of many of the tenants and doctrines of scripture that really by now I should have.  I want to rectify this.

Having consulted others on how best to address this I have decided to embark on a study of Systematic Theology (ST).  I have received two ST books as Christmas presents in 2011 - by Wayne Grudem and Louis Berkhof.  These will form the basis of my study.  I will primarily follow Grudem, as I find his material easier to digest and in each chapter he references the relevant sections of Berkof's book :)

My theological views today (January 2012).
It's worth stating what my position is on various topics today:-

•  On the "major doctrines" (such as God's sovereignty, man's responsibility, how we are saved) I have a "reformed position".  This is really as a result of the teaching I have been exposed to in my life to date more than on vast personal study.
• Having been under the teaching of a Presbyterian church for the last 12 years I submit to the views of covenant theology - the church is the spiritual seed of Abraham, jews are saved by grace and that salvation is obtained by the same means in both the old and new testaments.  I'm not into dispensationalism.
• Baptism - infant baptism (as a result of covenant theology)
• Marriange - between a man and a woman only.
• Women's role in the church - Unclear.  I have read 1 Tim 11 but don't understand why Paul applies arguments from "the fall" to roles in the church.
• Homosexuality - Generally, I view it as against God's will.  Specifically regarding homosexual ordained ministers: I'm actually ok with that, but expect them to be celibate (as I expect a single, heterosexual minister to be celibate).  To me the only issue of primary importance is whether or not they a minister is saved.
• Spiritual Gifts - I think these are still around today, however prophecy I believe was different in the time of the New Testament as the church as being established.
• Second coming - I've no idea.  I've heard of the four views but would struggle to describe them never mind actually hold one of them.

Help from others
In studying God's word I wish to enlist the help of others.  Hence using several books on Systematic heology, and (I hope) discussing my undestanding with trusted others.  This will also serve as a check against error in my understanding.  I find that writing things down helps me to clarify my thoughts and gives me a record that can be reviewed by others.  I'm all for transparency and being a techie and wishing to share my thoughts with others, doing so online seems to be the obvious way to do this.