New Testament Scholars Need to Know Biblical Greek and Hebrew

Students who receive Ph.Ds in New Testament studies should have an understanding of biblical Greek and Hebrew. However, and it seems increasingly som, some NT Ph.D programs today the original languages are not required.

When I study the New Testament, the scholars I look to must know the original languages. NT scholars do not look to translations of the Bible, but to the original languages themselves. Just as, e.g., a Kant scholar must read Kant in German, and not in English translations. Real biblical scholars do not read the KJV or the NIV or the NSRV when they do Jesus-studies or textual analysis.

Ben Witherington, in his web post "The Pretenders and the Contenders– NT Studies Doctoral Students,"
cites NT scholar Larry Hurtado and shares Hurtado's concerns about NT studies today. Every NT PhD graduate should be able to use the original languages. "It is indispensable to be able to read Koine Greek well. That means a good knowledge of grammar, a decent working vocabulary, and as much experience reading different texts as one can develop. Also Hebrew. Latin is highly desirable too, but not as essential for biblical studies." Computer tools are nice, but are no substitute for knowing the languages inside and out.

Hurtado adds: "Likewise, every PhD student should be able to consult and engage relevant scholarly publications in English, German and French (which are the main languages of NT scholarship)."

An aside: we recently had original language scholar Paul Albrecht at Redeemer for three evenings of Intro to Biblical Greek. Paul is an excellent Greek scholar who is an amazing teacher. It takes a great teacher to take such a foreign topic and, in three 2 1/2 - hour sessions, get 45 people very excited and wanting more. The knowledge and ability to go deep into the Greek text brings out the meaning of Scripture in ways one who doesn't grasp it would never see.

The Best 100 Christian Academic Books

Here's a list.

The first book on the list is The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, by David Bentley Hart. I WANT TO READ THIS BOOK!  

Medications Cannot Treat Everything About the Human Soul

Reading philosophy for the past 40+ years has helped my sanity. Professional philosophers are intellectual problem-solvers. Reading certain philosophers has helped solve some of my inner problems, and greatly stimulated my mind. And, as a theistic philosopher myself, I am pleased with the recent comeback among my kind. There are many theistic philosophers in America's universities.

Often, when I counsel others, I draw on problem-solving skills I have learned in logic as well as philosophical wisdom. I now remember an independent study I had with Wheaton College philosopher Arthur Holmes, who taught me that "all truth is God's truth."

It doesn't strike me as odd that philosophical counseling is increasing. "Philosophical counselors are becoming increasingly popular at a time when Americans are taking more antidepressants than ever before. According to a study published in the August issue of Health Affairs, non-psychiatrists are increasingly prescribing drugs for patients who haven’t even gotten a diagnosis of mental illness." ("Philosophical counselors rely on eternal wisdom of great thinkers")

Philosophical counseling need not be, and mostly will not be, "New Agey" stuff. Ph.Ds in philosophy are not interested in channelling ancestors or getting in touch with the universe. If all truth is God's truth, then I think there is a lot of truth to be discovered in academic philosophy that can assist people in living.

A lot will depend on the particular philsosophical counselor. What is their worldview? But I agree with philosopher Dr. Patricia Murphey when she says, “Not everyone needs to be medicated. Whereas drugs can treat the body, there may be other things that the soul needs.”

Justification: Five Views

This book, Justification: Five Views, is going to be a lot of fun.

The amazon reviews say:

"Of all the multiple views books, this one was needed most. It is also perhaps the best yet: getting Horton, Dunn, Bird, Kärkkäinen, O'Collins and Rafferty all at the table at the same time under the same roof is both a tour de force and a brilliant example of how their interaction can teach each of us. One word is needed most for the justification debate at work among (mostly) evangelicals, the word listen, and if you listen to the pages of this book you will see examples of not listening and listening. The challenge remains for all of us: will we listen again to the Scriptures to hear what it says about justification? Or will we impose our systems of thought on the Bible?" (Scot McKnight, North Park University )


"Beilby and Eddy have raised the bar with regard to this multiple views genre, this time bringing together world-renowned scholars and theologians to engage a very hot topic. Reading Justification: Five Views is like being treated to five books by five masters of their craft, each going deep into the details at times but yet also stepping back to cover the forest ably enough for the less initiated to appreciate what is at stake. A must-read for those interested in the ecumenical implications of the doctrine of justification." (Amos Yong, Regent University School of Divinity )

"No single volume could possibly cover all Christian views of the doctrine of justification. Justification: Five Views courageously selects five contemporary views and helpfully presents and critiques them. Each view is expounded and defended by a leading proponent and then critiqued by other contributors. Anyone interested in the current discussion about this crucial Christian doctrine must read this book. It sheds more light than heat in an area of theology almost burned over by heated polemics. Of all the 'views' books out there, this is one of the best." (Roger E. Olson, professor of theology, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University )

"A wonderfully useful book. After a superb historical survey of the issues to be debated, five influential approaches to the doctrine of justification by faith are presented and defended by credible and engaging representatives. I can think of no better introduction to these important debates than this outstanding volume." (Alister E. McGrath, King's College, London )

And the five views are:

• Traditional Reformed (Michael S. Horton)
• Progressive Reformed (Michael F. Bird)
• New Perspective (James D. G. Dunn)
• Deification, or Theosis (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen)
• Roman Catholic (Gerald O’Collins and Oliver Rafferty)

Plus, "editors James Beilby, Paul R. Eddy and Steven E. Enderlein provide an extensive introduction to the issues informing this important debate."

Yet another good Pauline resource, especially relevant to myself and Redeemer as we are now on a several-year preaching project on the Christology of Paul.

An iPhoned Worldview

I'm a big fan of philosopher James K.A. Smith. Smith's Thinking in Tongues is the best book I've read in 2011.

Smith's blog is called Fors Clavigera. He posts occasionally. His recent post is The iPhone-ization of our World(view).

"Every technology is attended by a mode of bodily practice." Imagine this. John has never texted on his phone. So, he has trouble, and is slow, when texting. But over time John morphs into a slick, quick, "thoughtless" texter. John's newly acquired ability to text without trying is because his physical brain has formed new neural connections. And so John is a transformed person. This new technology results in a new mode of bodily practice.

Smith writes: "Apple has long understood the bodily nature of this interface. In this respect, we already take for granted how revolutionary the touch screen is: it is a new, differently-tactile mode of bodily interface."

A "micropractice" like texting has macro effects. Smith writes: "what might appear to be inconsequential micro habits are, in fact, disciplinary formations that begin to reconfigure our relation to the wider world--indeed, they begin to make that world. As Bourdieu puts it in The Logic of Practice, "The cunning of pedagogic reason lies precisely in the fact that it manages to extort what is essential while seeming to demand the insignificant" (p. 69)."

Interfacing with one's iPhone provides a micro-training "that subtly and unconsciously trains us to treat the world as "available" to me, and at my disposal--to be selected, scaled, scanned, tapped, and enjoyed." The micro-practices of technology create macro-physical ways of being, which are signs of neuro-morphing. Thus deep structural changes are effected.

The Department of Homeland Security Calls on Me

I just received an e-mail from the "U.S. Department of Homeland Security," with the heading: "You Have Won the Sum of One Million U.S. Dollars Legally."

I wonder: why would the Dept. of Homeland Security contact me? Why would they offer me $1,000,000? I can only think that they see the value of my still-imperfect-though-real prayer life. God is my Protector. Perhaps Homeland Security realizes that, ultimately, only God can save and protect us, and they are willing to pay people like me to ensure this?

I've decided to not take the million dollars and do it for free.

Desiring to Be a Saint

Grosse Isle

Thomas Merton, in one of his journal entries, wrote of his desire to be a saint. "There is nothing else I can think of desiring to be," he wrote. (Sept. 1, 1949, in A Year With Thomas Merton, Sept. 2)

Even though Merton was Roman Catholic, I do not think his desire was to be enshrined in some cult of "the great saints." Merton appreciated anonymity, and lived it out, in huge chunks of his life, in his Trappist hermitage in the Kentucky woods. This was the cultivation of growth in holiness, done in anonymity, with the result of great influence for God and his Kingdom. I know this, because every day God speaks something through Merton to me.

To be a "saint." "Saint" is a good word. It was never meant to mean something like: "very special and venerated spiritual hero." It comes from the biblical Greek word hagios, which means: "set apart." A "saint" is a Jesus-follower who is set apart for Christ and his Kingdom. The life of a saint is a life fully reserved for utilization by God. The motto of a saint is: "I am your's, Lord. This and every day." And: "Use me, Lord." And "Here I am, Lord. Send me!"

For Merton, set-apartness required simplicity. This means: focus on one thing, on life's most important thing. Simplicity is not the same as "simplistic." "Simplistic" is shallow; "simplicity" runs deep.

A holy, set-apart life is a life of integrity. This is like Isaiah being "undone" and unravelled and dis-integrated for the sake of his re-integration by the hand of God. "Integrity," in metallurgy, is about seamlessness and consistency. A piece of metal that has integrity is the same at every point; a holy life is "set apart for God" at every point and every situation and every part of one's being. This, for me, is what Merton's desire to be a saint is about.

For Merton the challenge was that he was "all mixed up in illusions and attachments." (Ib.) These are impurities that weaken life and threaten one's structural integrity. They indicate areas where one is not given over to God.

What is required is "a complete and holy transparency." A "saint" becomes a person who is less so that Christ can be more. We see Jesus in the life of a saint. God is encountered, not some ego-driven person. Saintly, holy living then looks like this:

"God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints,And to be held in reverence by all those around Him."
- Psalm 89:7

"The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever."
- Daniel 7:18

"To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
- Romans 1:7

"Called to be saints." That's you. Desire this.

Science Is Unable to Determine Right and Wrong

In Science and Religion: A New Introduction, Alister McGrath argues that science is unable to determine what is right and wrong. He writes: "Most scientists would affi rm that their discipline is fundamentally amoral – that is, that the scientifi c method does not extend to moral questions. For example, Richard Dawkins succinctly confi rmed that “ science has no methods for deciding what is ethical." (McGrath, 3)

McGrath quotes evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould in support of this:

"Our failure to discern a universal good does not record any lack of insight or ingenu-ity, but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms. Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people. The answers will not be read passively from nature; they do not, and cannot, arise from the data of science. The factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner." (Ib.)

OK. Science qua science cannot derive "ought" from "is." From where, then, shall we learn about ethics? The answer, as always: from religion and philosophy.

Redeemer High School & Middle School Information - Fall 2011

C. S. Lewis’s Moral Argument for the Existence of God

C. S. Lewis’s Moral Argument for the Existence of God


From Baggett and Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality

1. There is an objective moral law that is binding on our actions. We see this in the ways that we speak. We know this by nature and don’t need to be taught it. Lewis thought we “can just see the difference between right and wrong on our own, or at least we should. Lewis was right that at least many moral facts seem obvious indeed. It’s wrong, for example, to torture innocent children for fun, and we plainly recognize it.” This fact needs explanation. (Good God, p. 9)

2. The moral law that tells how to behave gives us a compelling reason to believe in God. Baggett and Walls (BW) say Lewis may have overstated this, but it is still suggestive.

3. What explanations can be given for the existence of this moral law within us? Lewis narrows the alternatives to two: naturalism and religion.

a. Naturalism is: “the view that the physical world is all there is, and behind it is no ultimate pattern or plan or purpose.” (Ib., 10)

b. “A religious conception of reality, in contrast, holds that behind the physical world is something else, likely a mind of some sort. “That is to say,” as Lewis put it, “it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself . . . to the extent of having minds.”” (Ib.)

4. Lewis believed that “if there is something behind the universe responsible for its existence, Lewis suggests that it would have to reveal itself to us as something other than one of the facts inside the universe.” (Ib.) For Lewis this “something” is the moral law within us that presses on us to behave in a certain way. We feel that we “ought” to do some things, and that we “ought not” to do other things (like kill babies for fun).

5. Lewis does not think naturalism can explain this. BW write: “The source of this moral obligation isn’t likely to be mere matter. An evolutionary account of feelings of or beliefs in, say, moral obligation is certainly possible, but how would naturalism explain obligation itself? How collections of atoms could generate and issue genuinely binding moral commands is altogether mysterious, if not absurd.” (Ib., 11) It’s hard to see how purely empirical properties could account for binding obligation or intrinsic value.

6. If there is something more here, it’s “more like a mind than a collection of atoms or set of empirical properties.” (Ib.)

7. If naturalism does not adequately explain the moral law within, the alternative is theism.

BW sum it up: “Lewis’s essential argument can be summarized like this: There are objective moral facts, among them guilt for wrongdoing and duties we are obliged to obey and are responsible for neglecting, and such objective facts are better explained by a religious understanding of reality than by a Russellian world. So morality gives us some significant preliminary reason to believe in God.” (Ib., 11)

BW then go on to look at the major philosophical objections to Lewis’s Moral Argument for God’s Existence.

BW’s entire first chapter is a very good read and takes us deep into the issues surrounding the Moral Argument.

This serves as an entree for two things: 1) a systematic refutation of the Euthyphro Dilemma; and 2) BW's Moral Argument for God's Existence.