Reflection on "Who Needs Theology?"

I admire visionary leaders who point out promising goals and outline steps to reach those goals. However, without a clear definition of what the goal is or lacking a compelling reason to pursue that goal, a visionary leader may fail to lead people to reach what is promised. I would argue that a "good theology" is what a visionary leader needs to give people a clear definition and a compelling reason to pursue the goal. 

What is a good theology? Grenz and Olson defined it as "reflecting on and articulating the God-centered life and beliefs that Christians share as followers of Jesus Christ, and it is done in order that God may be glorified in all Christians are and do.”[1] With this definition, I would suggest that a good theology is like a GPS-enabled life book which gives Christians a clear definition of what a God-centered life is and a tool to help Christians live a God-centered life with specific answers to "what's", "how's" and "why's".    

Reflection on "Theology as a Necessity"

So why we need theology? A good theology grounds a God-centered life, and a God-centered life brings glory to God[2], which gives the necessity of a good theology. Grenz called this God-centered life "discipleship", which is "allowing Christ to be Lord of the core convictions - the belief structure, the worldview - that govern not only thoughts but also entire lives."[3] A good theology roots in God’s words (biblical theology), so we can "discover and destroy the wrong faith or myth regarding to incorrect convictions."[4]  

A good theology helps us reflect on and articulate what it means by living out a life of discipleship. I found similar claims in 1 Peter 3:15, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." Peter not only pointed out the importance of a Godly living, he also challenged us to be ready "to make a defense" when an opportunity presents itself. A good theology helps us get ready to give defenses of what we believe.

Why theology? not every theology. As Grenz warned, bad theologies could be very dry and pointless. I heard people debating on the needs to pray before a mid-night snack. They concluded that we prayed only for hot meals, eating ice creams doesn't require a prayer. Grenz changed my view about the necessity of doing theology. We do good theologies to help us "know the truth not merely so that we might think properly, but so that we might live properly."[5]

What kind of Theology?

Grenz argued that everyone is a theologian, but not everyone is a good theologian; Everyone is doing theology, but not every theology is the same. Grenz helped me see five kinds of theologies based on their different levels of reflection - folk theology, lay theology, ministerial theology, professional theology, and academic theology. The least reflected theology is folk theology, which is "unreflective beliefs based on blind faith in a tradition of some kind"[6]. On the other side of spectrum lays the academic theology, which Grenz argued that it is "disconnected from the church and has little to do with concrete Christian living." However, all Christians who seek to grow in their faith need lay, ministerial, and professional theology, as Grenz suggested. Knowing what level of reflection I am in now helps me apply different theology's tasks and tools as discussed below. 

Theology's Tasks, Tools, and Traditions

I like Grenz's classification of theology's tools and tasks, it helps me understand theologian's works. First, Grenz identified two major theology's tasks: critical and construction tasks. Critical task includes two activities: examining and evaluating Christian beliefs, and second, categorizing valid Christian beliefs as dogma, doctrine, or opinion.[7] With the help of this classification, I know which theology's task I am engaging in now and what tools are available to me when conducting specific theology's activities. 

For example, I once heard of a youth pastor teaching students "let Jesus be your co-pilot". With a concern in mind, I questioned the validity of this teaching. Although I was doing the theology's critical task, I didn't know where to get the tools and tactics needed for this task. Grenz gave me three major sources and norms as theology's tools - the biblical message, the theological heritage of the church, and the thought-forms of contemporary culture. Grenz also suggested his tactics. He asked us to start answering the "Why?" questions. Why did this youth pastor teach his students "Jesus is my co-pilot"? if this is what he truly believes, then I would want to know what biblical bases he has (tool #1 - biblical theology) and whether there were similar teachings on this "co-pilot" belief (tool #2 - historical theology). I would also examine it carefully to see whether this teaching was a contemporary version of Gnosticism or a part of the "New Age" movement (tool #3 - relevancy).    

     

Grenz also helped me engage in theology's second task - constructive task. He defined construction task as the development of "unified models of diverse biblical teachings and the application of those models relevantly to contemporary culture."[8] He argued that the goal of the construction task of theology is to "articulate our foundational beliefs about God and the world for the sake of living as Christians in our contemporary context."[9] Grenz's tools for the construction task include three practices of systematic theology - developing of a synoptic vision of the biblical message, the theological heritage of the church, and contemporary culture.[10] He argued that a synoptic vision is the key, which he defined as "holistic perspective that attempts to draw into coherence the otherwise blooming, buzzing confusion of data."[11] He suggested a tactic to develop this synoptic vision by using an "integrative motif" that will "forms a hub that stands at the center and holds together the spokes of the wheel of the theology."[12]   

To apply Grenz's tools and tactics to examine the teaching of "Jesus is my co-pilot", I will need to clearly articulate the relationship between God, Jesus, and me. I would develop a synoptic vision similar to this - "God's grace mission is to restore our sonship through Jesus' work on earth", where I would use "God's mission" as my "integrative motif" to tie the rest of theologies together (God's grace, restoration, sonship, and Jesus' work). Once my synoptic theology is formed, I would attempt to revise the teaching to "Jesus is my pilot" as a contemporary equivalence to say " Jesus is my Lord."

One of Grenz's construction tools is to use traditions or historical theology as a source to assist in theology's tasks. He categorized traditions into five camps: the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Protestants, Liberal (or “Modernist”) theology and mediating theologies.[13] Grenz suggested that most of the dogmatic and doctrinal theologies were developed in the first seven centuries in the first two camps and the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the third camp - the Protestant. Grenze argued that "all three major branches of Christian theology and church life discussed so far agree on certain basics."[14]

 

I would tentatively agree with Grenz's assertion that all three major branches are still biblical and Christian on the very core and fundamental level, since they are still "God-centric" beliefs. On the other hand, most of the contemporary liberal (or modernist) theologies are man-centered, characterized in viewing God as optional at the best or even obstructive at the worst. 

Although I appreciated Grenz's illustration of Christian traditions, he didn't address the impacts of western Christian traditions (traditional teachings) on other parts of the world. I can see the places for a modernized Hinduism (everyone is God), Daoism (God is Dao), and folk religions (spirits are Gods) in our post-modern setting where the spirituality is taking a whole different meaning and perspective. I would argue that we need more "tools" in Grenz's "traditions" category at least to include the Christian reflections on eastern religions and schools of thoughts from other parts of the world. We also need to study how Christianity interacted with eastern religions in history as part of the historical theology, especially the historical reviews in western Christian Church's dealing with contextualization (e.g. Nestorianism in 7th century China, Heavenly Kingdom of Peace rebellion in 1860's China, and the Eastern Lighting cult in China and U.S.). Without this level of reflection, I believe Grenz's argument in traditions will fall in the danger of "perversion" as discussed in the lecture "the need for community".[15]  

Summary

Grenz encourages me to construct theology in context, which I believe we should include views and voices from a more diverse source. As Grenz pointed out, we want to balance our theology between being faithful to the biblical message and being relevant to contemporary. I would suggest that we add more tools, tactics and experiences from other Christian sources from other parts of the world when doing historical theology. I like what Grenz concluded about a good theology which helps me to “become steadfast in faith and more sure of what I believe.”[16] and I was also convinced from the lecture that doing theology is also finite which requires constant revision and always needs to be contextualized.

---

[1] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 49

[2] l Cor. 10:31

[3] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 48 (paraphrased).

[4] Ibid., 41.

[5] Ibid., 43.

[6] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 27.

[7] Ibid., 80.

[8] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 98.

[9] Ibid., 80.

[10] Blaising's definition of systematic theology is also stressing on the importance of contemporary philosophical and cultural environment. (lecture, module 3, Theology Methods)

[11] Ibid., 147.

[12] Ibid., 146.

[13] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 83-86.

[14] Ibid., 84.

[15] Lecture, Module 5, Role of Culture.

[16] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 42.

Culture, Postmodernism, and Ministerial Response

What is culture? what is the role culture plays in developing a theological method in the post-modern world? How do we contextualize a new ministry/theology in a postmodern society? These are three questions this paper is trying to respond.

What is Culture?

Some people understand culture as the sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguish one group of people from another, but I like what Robert Lewis said, "culture is the shared software of our minds."[1] Indeed, a shared software that causes a group of people operating in the same way and producing the same results in a fairly predictable way. Without too much difficulty, we can identify a Chinese American from a Caucasian American by observing what they eat, how they interact with their elders, and how they educate their children, even they're all speaking the same language. Similarly, we can probably tell the differences between Christians from different denominations based on how they run their churches. We are what we believe, and thus, if a group of people behave and think similarly, they are probably running on the same "shared software".

Culture, Theology and Theological Methods in Modernism

What is the role culture plays in developing theological methods? The answer lies in our understanding of how Christian theology, culture, and theological methods are related to each other. To my knowledge, theology is an understanding of who God is and our relationship with Him. Culture is the manifestation of the theology that we believe. Theological methods are the tasks and tools that we developed for us to better understand the underlying theology and to articulate what we believe to other people. With this understanding, I would argue that theology gives birth to culture, which, in turn, defines how theological methods are developing. In order to develop an effective theological method in our post-modern world, we will need to incorporate the understanding of the culture and the underlying theology. Since the culture is highly contextualized, our theological methods are also contextualized, but our central theology may remain in the high ground controlling the meta-narrative.

Borrowing Lewis' analogy, if culture is a shared software, I would argue that its central processing unit (CPU) is theology. A shared software (culture) may have many copies (sub-cultures), but they all share only one CPU. Therefore, to make this shared software work in a different environment, I will need to use a different local setting, but my central CPU is still the same. Which means when I am sharing Gospel with people from different cultural backgrounds, I will need to switch my local settings to open up a more effective communication channel while my central theology remains in the driver's seat. However, if my central theology is faulty, then my theological methods will be distorted, no matter how much efforts I put in to contextualize my methods.

A Case Study

To further illustrate the relationship between theology, culture, and theological methods, I would argue that the overseas ministries supported by western churches in the past three hundred years may have largely failed, not because of their western-centered theological methods, but because of their faulty theologies.   

What happened? While millions of people converted into Christianity, billions of people also developed a hostile view toward western missionaries and called them "cultural imperialists"[2]. To some extent, this name is probably not far from the truth. Even today in many Asian countries, we can still see churches built in western styles, congregations sing in western hymns, believers using western names, and traditional customs and festivals were discouraged. Gospel was "sold" as a western product at a price of losing one's own culture, which, in turn, also depriving of one's own identity. No wonder Christian believers in many Asian countries were viewed as traitors by their own countryman and even rejected by their own families. Christianity was largely viewed as American's religion and God was viewed as white people's God.

That sounds bad, right? yes, but it's not the worst. I would argue that these western missionaries also brought in a "shared software" designed by and from the influences of modernism happened in most of western countries in the last three centuries, where science and technology were valued and rationalism was encouraged. The bigger problem was, underneath this "shared software", a theology they all shared which may have been "flawed". 

According to their "modernism" theology (which may have been influenced by the Reformation), God were best understood by studying and understanding from the Bible, and the Bible only. This theology created three issues in their overseas ministries. 

First, in order to educate new believers to read and understand the Bible, schools needed to be built, teachers needed to be trained, and teaching materials needed to be developed. Churches did a great job helping these developing countries improved their educational systems, but what the schools taught were mainly science and technologies, as well as western version of moral and social standards. All these new "standards" were so foreign to most of people in these countries. On the one hand, it created an environment easier for western missionaries to teach locals their western version of Gospel, but on the other hand, it may have lost the opportunity to use a more native and natural way to share Gospel and may have forced a faulty theology onto the new believers. We can see these two issues unfolded in the next section.

The second issue of a faulty theology is that we lost a great opportunity to witness the Gospel using a cultural narrative that is more familiar with the locals. Apostle Paul never forced a Jewish doctrine or tradition on Greek believers, instead he introduced the Gospel using the Greek culture and language[3] that were more natural to the locals. Paul's Mars Hill sermon was the epic example of bridging the gap between worshiping an unknown god and worshiping the Creator God. If the western missionaries were to use the concept from Chinese Daoism as the bridge to explain this "Word (Dao) became flesh and made his dwelling among us", then the entire Daoism can become more complete and can be understood by Chinese people in light of John 1:14. A Gospel door may have been opened for Chinese people to accept the creator God that their ancestors had been searching and longing for.   

The third issue is that a faulty theology can destroy a local culture. Western missionaries brought in new doctrines and practices which created unnecessary bondage and even caused chaos. The problem was that many doctrines were explained in western analogies and Christian livings were gauged by western standards. For example, being a Christian means that you will need to listen to God and not listen to your unbelieving parents, which created a huge issue in a culture that respects parents more than anything else. History witnessed its impact. Hundreds and thousands of Chinese Christians accepted this "shared software" and started to believe that their own Chinese culture was nothing but a pair of old and ragged shoes that needed to be discarded, which may have directly or indirectly caused more than a hundred year of chaos and turmoil in China throughout most of 20th century.

Contextualize a New Theology in Post-Modernism

Can this history be avoided? For most of western missionaries, they had received the best educations, best theological training, and equipped with the most powerful technologies that the world could offer, but their understandings of God, their personal convictions, and their theological methods were largely molded under the influences of the modern rationalism (epistemology precedes metaphysics), which became powerless when faced a society that valued more on a meta-physical world than physical world. Forcing an already "spiritual" man to become "rational" and then teaching him become a new "Bible" man in a western cultural setting is totally counter-productive.  

So, what should we do differently in this post-modern world? A world that most people no longer believe the authority of science and technology, a world where people start to recognize the possible existence of spiritual elements. From a theological "critical task" point of view, I would argue that we need to carefully re-examine our traditional "rationalist" theology and develop a new theology that allows us to understand God's revelation from a non-rationalist point of view. 

I am not suggesting an "irrational" theology, I am simply saying that God is bigger than the God of reasoning. Most of people living in Asian have no trouble accepting a world full of the power of deity, it's the people in the West who need to "unlearn" what they have been taught and start worshiping God in "spirit and truth" as Jesus pointed out to the Samaritan woman recorded in John 4:24. Once we, as evangelical Christians in the West, start to develop a new theology that allows our God jump out of the text in the Bible and become a living Spirit dwelling among us, then we can start our first theological "constructive task" to learn and understand the cultures of other people who are still worshiping false gods. Sometimes, we may need to "borrow" their worldview in order to explain Gospel more effectively to them. 

The second constructive task is to review the historical accounts and see how the ancient saints were ministering their overseas ministries in a contextualized sense. A suggested area of interest would be the Nestorians in 7th century China. Their churches were built in a traditional "temple" style and their texts were not shy from using traditional Chinese philosophy (e.g. they invented the name of God in Chinese 天主, literally, "Lord of Heaven").

Summary

Unfortunately, the most difficult constructive task in theological methods may reside in the 21st century America. Churches had hard time sharing the Gospel, especially to younger generations, because American people already enjoyed the "gospels" from the fruits of science and technology. The Gospel of a crucified Jesus is not popular, because Americans wanted a Jesus who can make them successful. Success is worshiped and the rich are honored, which is sadly the theology in our post-modern society. American people don't need God, because they already had a God - themselves. Our "shared software" in this post-modern America is "Be all you can be" - worshiping success more than anything else. Even churches are run by successful professionals. We need a new theology that we can reestablish churches which can "preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." (Luke 4:18)

---

[1] Lewis, Robert and Wayne Cordeiro, The Culture Shift: Transforming Your Church from the Inside Out (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 12.

[2] Moreau, A. Scott, Gary R. Corwin and Gary B. McGee, Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 20.

[3] 1 Corinthians 9:20-22

Doctrinal Synthesis Paper on Bibliology

Brief Statement On The Doctrine Of Bibliology

The Bible is the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17) intended for human readers who "earnestly seek him" (Hebrew 11:6). The Bible was written by the hands of human authors under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21) for the revelation of God's eternal plan to mankind about the knowledge of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and for the purpose of Godly living of believers (1 Corinthians 2:10-13). According to Protestant Orthodox tradition, the canonical Bible comprises the 39 books of the Hebrew Old Testament and the 27 books of the Greek New Testament in various literary forms covering God's grand story of the creation, the fall, the redemption, and the final restoration, which describes and foretells the relationship between God, mankind, and the created world, anchored in Jesus Christ. Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God and God speaks truthfully, therefore God's words are true, and thus, the Bible is inerrant in its original form (Num 23:19; Isa. 40:8; Isa 65:16; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), authoritative in its final adjudication (Matthew 24:35; Rev 22:18-22), sufficient in its completeness and relevance (2 Peter 1:3). According to the evangelicals' dispensational tradition, the Bible is best read and interpreted in grammatical-historical methods in identifying the intended meaning of the authors in different ages of administrative periods (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Detailed Exposition on Bibliology

 I believe that the Bible is the inspired[1] Word of God[2] through the dual authorship[3] of the divine author, God, and the human authors, spread over centuries and across numerous cultural contexts.[4] Under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit,[5] the human authors wrote down the texts in the Bible in plain, literal, and understandable human languages, intended for human readers who are "earnestly seeking Him."[6] In Scripture, God's plan was made known to mankind progressively throughout history[7] where God revealed Himself through prophets, through visions and dreams, through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit.[8] In Scripture, the ultimate knowledge of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is revealed[9] and this saving power is made possible for those who put their trust in Jesus Christ through His death and resurrection. For those who put their trust in Jesus, the Bible is not just for their head knowledge but for their spiritual and life transformation.[10] Believers will find the Bible useful for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," so that they may be equipped for godly living and for keeping the sound doctrines.[11]

According to the Protestant Orthodox tradition and by the authority of the prophets and apostles who contributed to the writings, I believe that the canonical Bible comprises the 39 books of the Hebrew Old Testament[12] and the 27 books of the Greek New Testament.[13] In Scripture, we find God's grand story in various literary forms covering the creation, the fall, the redemption, and the final restoration of the man and the earth.[14] Although written and recorded for different audiences in ancient time, in Scripture, we still find inspirational biblical stories, divine instructions, and personal convictions that are very relevant to our daily lives.[15] I believe the best way to approach the Bible is through the central figure Jesus Christ that "every given passage contributes to the shape of the overall story."[16]

I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and God speaks truthfully, therefore God's words are true, and thus, the Bible is infallible[17] in its original form affirming to what it revealed and claimed.[18] Although Bible inerrancy does not demand adherence to the rules of grammar nor does it demand chronological, historical, and scientific precision,[19] I believe that the Scripture is totally adequate to achieve its purpose and I believe that all the accounts presented in the Bible as historical has actually occurred[20]; they were quoted both by Jesus[21] and by His disciples[22] as fully reliable, authentic, trustworthy and authoritative historical facts, because they believe "the word of our God stands forever."[23] Although there are a number of alleged "errors and discrepancies" claimed by many historians and scholars in history, all of these errors and difficulties have been reasonably explained.[24]   

Because the Bible comes from the divine authority, it is meant to be obeyed, followed, trusted, and submitted to[25] and is authoritative in its final adjudication.[26] Truth can be found in the Scripture because of its divine source[27] and no one truth in one part of the Bible is "more truth" than another truth in other parts of the Bible.[28] The Scripture "contains all things necessary to be known for Christian faith and life and, therefore, for the attainment of external salvation,"[29] and thus the Bible is sufficient in its completeness and relevance and we need nothing more or else.[30]

I affirm that, by the dispensational hermeneutic tradition, the Bible is best read and interpreted in a grammatical-historical manner[31] so that the intended meaning of the authors can be clearly understand (perspicuity)[32] by those to whom it was originally and progressively given in different ages of administrative periods.[33]

Practical Implications of Bibliology

Ministry Emphasis: Preaching Ministry and Christian Life

Bibliology is the cornerstone and the reliable source of truth for the preaching ministry and Christian life. A sound doctrine of bibliology helps pastors and preachers deliver truth-filled messages from the teaching of the Bible's infallibility, authority, and sufficiency. A well-developed bibliology also helps churches define their ministry focuses and help truth seekers find eternal life (John 5:39). A good bibliology equips us for sound biblical teaching, rebuking heresies, correcting false teachings, and provide training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:15-17). With all the benefits of a good bibliology, however, many contemporary Bible churches in Northern America still struggled to answer two questions - what is truth? and how to make the Bible relevant to me.

So, what is truth? can we find ultimate truth in the Bible? Numerous theological and philosophical lectures and discussions have covered on this topic, and I am sure that the arguments and debates will be continually developed. Proposals like Coherence Theory, Pragmatic Theory, Performative Theory, and Correspondence Theory are all contributing to one or two aspects of this very definition of "truth" (class note - module 8). Unfortunately, none of these theories is suitable to begat a meta-narrative - an overarching structure or a belief system that gives meaning to the existence of life.

The good news is that from the study of bibliology, we have the perspicuous and required pillars to support this meta-narrative - God's story - His grand story of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Anchored and grounded on Jesus Christ, these pillars include, but are not limited to, the cognate doctrines of divine inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and canonicity. We use these pillars in bibliology to build a framework for a better understanding of God's story revealed and recorded in the Bible. With this understanding of meta-narrative (God's story), we can in turn appreciate and make sense of the relationship in different parts of the Bible and help us retell the story in the light of the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 16-20).       

But how exactly do we, as an Evangelical Christian, carry out this Great Commission equipped with the understanding of this meta-narrative? that leads to our second question - how do we make the Scripture relevant? 2 Peter 1:3 says, "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness." This passage unlocks a secret for a successful and powerful Christian life with two keys - His divine power and our knowledge of Him. As we mentioned earlier, a good doctrine of bibliology helps us construct and obtain the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Peter then points out to us that through this knowledge of Jesus, Jesus' divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life. So what is this divine power? this divine power ("δύναμιν") is the same power ("δύναμιν") we have seen in Acts 1:8 on the day of Pentecost. So we know that we can make the Bible relevant by the knowledge of Jesus through the study of the living Word of God (the Bible) and, with the power given by the Holy Spirit, we can carry out the Great Commission by retelling the meta-narrative - God's story.

Equipped with two keys to unlock a knowledgeable and powerful Christian life, do we own this meta-narrative in our community now? I don't think so. We are competing with other worldviews in defining the truth and whoever owns this meta-narrative will win the heads and hearts of lost people. People are demanding the truth, if we can't give them the truth, the world will. Within the context of preaching ministry and Christian life, we want to have a balanced theology that is constructed in a unified model of diverse Biblical teachings which is highly relevant to contemporary culture (Who Needs Theology? p.80).

We don't want to spend the majority of pulpit time just to obtain the "knowledge of the Bible" (which is "Bible deity" as Deere calls it). We want to use the pulpit time wisely to teach the "knowledge of Him" (2 Peter 1:3) - the person and the work of Jesus Christ. And, with that knowledge, we also want to build up our godly Christian life in the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:3) through praying continually (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18), meditating on "whatever is true" (Philippians 4:8), and loving one another (John 13:34-35, the new commandment).

With the two keys to unlock a balanced Christian life of knowledge and divine power, we will own the meta-narrative, which is what we called an effective preaching ministry and Christian life.

  

Biblical, Exegetical, Theological, Historical, and Explanatory Notes

---

[1] 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16. The term "inspired" is used not only to describe that the human authors were mentally "inspired" by God, but also that Scripture's very words are God's words. See Holsteen, Nathan D. and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, Vol 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014), 27.

[2] Although the Word of God can be used to refer to Jesus Christ as the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14), I am following the Christian tradition to use "Word of God" in a general sense to refer to the whole Bible. See McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology: An Introduction. (West Sussex, UK, 2017), 112-113.

[3] Holsteen, Nathan D. and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, Vol 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014), 127.  Holsteen and Svigel argued that each biblical text has two authors: God (the divine author) and the one God used to pen His words (the human authors).

[4] From the time of Moses (c. 1500 BC) all the way toward the beginning of the church's medieval period (c. AD 500) spans almost two thousand years.

[5] 2 Peter 1:19-21.

[6] Hebrew 11:6. The first affirmation of dispensational hermeneutic - the affirmation of perspicuity, which emphasizes that God's message can be understood by those to whom it is originally given. See Bingham, D. Jeffery and Glenn R. Kreider, Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption. (Chicago, IL, Moody Publishers), 110. God's eternal salvation plan are clearly revealed to those who are eagerly seeking Him, but it may stay hidden for those who are seeking worldly values (Romans 16.25).

[7] This is the second affirmation of dispensational hermeneutic, which goes like "God's revelation of Himself and His plan takes place progressively throughout history. See Bingham, D. Jeffery and Glenn R. Kreider, Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption. (Chicago, IL, Moody Publishers), 111.

[8] Hebrew 1:1-2. God spoke in history many times through various means and at the last days he spoke to us by His Son. Also refer to Holsteen, Nathan D. and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, Vol 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014), 36-37.

[9] 2 Timothy 3:15

[10] Holsteen, Nathan D. and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, Vol 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014), 77. 

[11] 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Jude 3. Geisler, Norman L., Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 44.

[12] Holsteen, Nathan D. and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, Vol 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014), 49-50. 

[13] Ibid., 52-53. 

[14] Ibid., 15-21. 

[15] John 5:39.

[16] Instead of reading Christ into every passage. See Bingham, D. Jeffery and Glenn R. Kreider, Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption. (Chicago, IL, Moody Publishers), 117.

[17] We don't understand the Bible inerrancy in terms of human reason or scientific methodology, we approach Bible inerrancy according to the basic Christian theology, which we believe that God's revelation in Scripture "become clear only in a context of belief." See Holsteen, Nathan D. and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, Vol 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014), 29. In this sense, we employee the concept of "faith comes before understanding" which we draw on reason as a means to better understand based on our faith.

[18] I affirm the Biblical Inerrancy as Chicago Statement Article 1 defines it and I agree that the Bible Inerrancy can be better understood as Feinberg puts it, "Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences." - Geisler, Norman L., Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 294. 

[19] Class note video (module 8).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Geisler, Norman L., Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 3-34.

[22] Ibid., 39-53.

[23] Isa. 40:7, 8.

[24] Archer wrote a paper to explain the nine so-called "difficulties and discrepancies" in the Bible, including the genealogies of Christ, the number of Peter's denials, dating of the Exodus, and the source of the potter's-field reference. This paper was published in Geisler's "Inerrancy" book, Geisler, Norman L., Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 57-82. Similarly, Beegle had discussed eleven passages that were considered "inconsistency" in the Bible, including Jude's reference to Enoch, the time span of Genesis 5 genealogies, the leading of David to make the census, and Jacob's burial place. Beegle's discussion is also been collected in chapter 3 in the same book.   

[25] Class note video (module 9-1).

[26] I affirm the Biblical Authority as Chicago Statement Article 2 defines it, "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and super-intended by His Spirit, is of infallible authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises."

[27] John 14:6.

[28] This statement is a reflection of Deere's thesis about other forms of revelation, specifically through visions and impressions. It seems that Deere puts significant weights on these other "spiritual revelations" that sometimes caused tension and discussions on the level of authorities or different categories of authority. (see class note video 9-1).

[29] 2 Timothy 3:15-17; John 5:39; The Westminster Confession of Faith.

[30] 2 Peter 1:3.

[31] Some suggested that literal hermeneutic approach can be improved by making it a "grammatical-historical-literary-theological" approach (Blaising and Bock). See Bingham, D. Jeffery and Glenn R. Kreider, Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption. (Chicago, IL, Moody Publishers), 116.

[32] The dispensationalist is likely to emphasize the perspicuity, or clarity, of the divine message, quoting that "God's message can be understood by those to whom it is originally given." See Bingham, D. Jeffery and Glenn R. Kreider, Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption. (Chicago, IL, Moody Publishers), 110.

[33] In Bingham and Kreider's book (Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption chapter 4, p110-111) , Holsteen raised a question about the controversy of the Reformed Doctrine of Perspicuity. Quoting from the Westmnister Confession that "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them," Holsteen argued that this understanding of perspicuity "must necessarily exclude the message of the Old Testament prophets," because "Old Testament Israel had precisely no chance of understanding the true meaning of the prophets' message." To solve this irony, Hosteen suggests a solution in the so-called "progressive revelation", which asserts that "God's revelation of Himself and His plan takes place progressively throughout history." I affirm this observation of the "progressive revelation" as a hermeneutic of dispensationalism.