(This is a continuation of the “Interpreting The Bible“ video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
This week’s lesson focuses on a law known as “First Mention.” This law is simple in its principle, but profound in its application. This law essentially uses the concept of “precedent” to assist the biblical interpreter in the proper application of a theological term or truth. If, then, I know how a term or concept has been used earlier in scripture, I can properly interpret a later understanding of the same term or principle.
(This is a continuation of the “Interpreting The Bible“ video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
This week’s topic in the series involves the principle of “progressive revelation.” Progressive revelation essentially enforces consideration of the fact that God did not reveal all theological truth at once, but over a long period of time. The fullness of what Moses knew about Jehovah, Noah did not know. What the apostles knew, Moses did not know.
Through millennia- from Adam to the apostles – God revealed his plan by small revelations which built upon one another. Even the understanding of Messiah began from an Edenic concept as simple as “a seed of woman” and was further developed in scripture to involve the seed of Abraham, Judah and David. By the time of Christ a composite sketch of many centuries had formed to give Israel an accurate accounting of what she should expect when Messiah was revealed. At the time of Isaiah, however, this portrait of Messiah would have been exceptionally limited; virtually only to lineage.
Understaning the principle of progressive revelation prevents the interpreter from injecting theological knowledge of a later date into the minds of earlier writers. While it is true that later writings bring clarity to earlier ones, it is not true that earlier theological truths are trumped; being interpreted in light of later ones. If that were so, then the earlier writings would have no meaning whatsoever to those to whom they were delivered.
Today’s video lesson explores the impact of progressive revelation on our interpretive process.
(This is the conclusion of The Gospel Truth video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
This week we conclude the whole of the “Gospel Truth” video series. This concluding message is an overview of numerous historical views concerning atonement theories.
As part of this message, special notes are made to a few modern groups who are insistent upon maligning the proper biblical understanding of the atonement in lieu of their own re-packaged agenda-driven models.
(This is a continuation of the “Interpreting The Bible“ video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
Continuing from last week’s introduction to the interpretive law of dual (or double) reference, this week’s lesson will focus in on the “gap” variety of dual reference; in which one prophecy is fulfilled in part from two different historical events which are separated by a gap of time. As such, there is frequently a presumed fulfillment of a prophecy, yet the fulfillment does not completely meet the criteria of the original prophetic word. As such, this presumed fulfillment is not complete, but partial, and will be later completed by further events.
Numerous messianic prophecies have unfolded in this manner. In several cases, one prophetic sentence – or paragraph – depicts both the first and second comings of Christ. These prophesies have been only partially fulfilled, as the “gap” has not yet passed before his second coming, when Christ will complete the prophetic vision.
Today’s video course is largely an illustration of this principle at work.
(This is a continuation of The Gospel Truth video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
Many theological debates concerning the nature of salvation can actually be solved by a simple acknowledgement that the scriptures depict “salvation” as more than a singular moment in time. In fact, the scriptures teach salvation as something which is (or can be) past tense, present ongoing tense and yet future tense – all-the-while affirming earlier tenses.
How can such be? Simply put, salvation is presented in scripture as three related but distinct transformational progressions:
Justification is the salvation from the penalty of sin; the act of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ into the account of the sinner. This is what many would refer to as “the moment of” salvation.
Sanctification is an ongoing work of redemption which renders the sinner (on an expanding basis) free from the power of sin. This “continuing work” of salvation in the earthly realm is generally known as “discipleship,” or the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ.
Glorification is the final work of redemption which propels the sinner into an eternally glorified (physical and spiritual) state which is free from the presence of sin forever. This is best understood as “the finished work” of salvation; the full restoration of body and soul, preserved eternally in an incorruptible state.
While the term “salvation” applies to each of these realities, the understanding of a procedural salvation – in terms of its unfolding fruition in the life of the sinner – helps to explain many heartily argued points of contention in soteriology.
Today’s video blog examines the process of salvation through these three distinct but related transformations and explains how one may be considered “saved” today, “being saved” today and yet “to be saved” fully at a later time.
(This is a continuation of The Gospel Truth video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
A great storm is stirred up each time the terms “Lordship” and “gospel” are uttered in the same sentence; let alone the same title of a message. This debate involves what is described as “Lordship Salvation;” a theological debate with substantially sound doctrinal minds on both sides.
This post is, of course, not about Lordship Salvation as a subject; but a continuation of this series on the gospel at the point in which the issue is raised that “Lordship” of Christ is in fact at issue in the very subject matter of repentance.
As has been observed the past few weeks: faith is demonstrated in scripture to be an active response to belief rather than just an academic acknowlegement of certain facts. That response is repentance. Repentance is defined as a turning “from” one’s former understanding and allegiances “to” the trust in Christ.
This act of turning, it will be demonstrated today, is consistently decribed in scripture as an acquiescence to the Lordship of Christ: a confession to his deity and belief that He is the Son of God; and is God incarnate as he said. Such acknowledgment is not synonymous with stating that a new convert “must give every aspect of their lives to Christ” at the moment of salvation – for no sinner even knows “every aspect” of their lives which Christ will demand. Yet, such an acknowledgment is an affirmation to the person of Christ as God himself. As such, a person necessarily at least begins the process of acquiescence – which will be described next week as the process of “sanctification” – by the very turning in faith to Christ as God.
Thus, the idea of “confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord” is not a preconditioned “work” which mandates certain identifyable steps. It is rather the very element of faith expressed in repentance: the knowlege – by faith – of who Christ is. He is Lord.
(This is a continuation of the “Interpreting The Bible“ video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
A double header “catch up” video is posted this week for the Interpreting the Bible course.
Part 9 is a continuation of the examination of the past several weeks of The Golden Rule of interpretation; with further examples to assist us in determining – from the context – when a text should be interpreted figuratively and when not.
Part 10 introduces a new law; The Law of Dual Reference. This law explains that prophetic texts, at times, are fulfilled in more than one historical event. In such cases, the prophet writes as if he speaks of one event, yet the fulfillment reveals that only a portion of the text will be fulfilled at one time.
There are a few manners in which dual reference may unfold. Today’s study in Part 10 will discuss what is probably the more difficult to grasp, the rare Typeographical form of dual reference; when a prophecy speaks of a type, or form, of fulfillment which is thought fulfilled in scripture, but is later revealed to have not been fully fulfilled.
I do not remember the exact context, but several weeks ago one of the airy-voiced DJ’s on our local Christian radio station was speaking about a difficult week that she had recently experienced. She spoke of what I consider to be very standard worries involving widely normal life scenarios; akin to perhaps a broken washing machine. Let’s make sure we understand each other: no one was being martyred for the cause of Christ. No one was under intense persecution out of retribution for the preaching of the gospel. No one had been accosted, jailed, stoned, or hanged. It was just a “hard week” in the typical, American, “I was actually inconvenienced” sort of way. Continue Reading
(This is a continuation of The Gospel Truth video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
Understanding that Grace is the essential foundation upon which salvation is granted still leaves one to ponder the process by which such grace is applied to the sinner’s account. Ephesians, as noted in last week’s installment, states that this “salvation by grace” is installed “through faith.”
Sadly, pondering that conclusion will profoundly confuse many who live in the “new ecumenicism” of our modern culture, which defines “faith” as everything from God’s magic potion to man’s deeper intuition, depending on whether one gets their theology from “christian” (small C intended) television or modern liberal Jesus fad-books which teach a newer, milder variant of salvation in which one is truly not redeemed at all (for there is no true penalty for sins). Which of these “faith” definitions should one pursue to understand the gospel’s path of application?
Simply stated, theological truth is not democratically produced nor deconstructed in focus group meetings. The Bible’s own definition of faith is that which counts. Such will be the focus of today’s continued examination of The Gospel Truth.
(This is a continuation of the “Interpreting The Bible“ video blog series. This post assumes the prerequisite watching of earlier videos in the series. Click the link above to watch the entire series up to this week’s installment.)
In the previous post The Golden Rule of Interpretation was introduced. This rule prevents the interpreter from arbitrarily “spiritualizing” or improperly creating symbolic truths out of a text that should be treated literally.
This week’s study focuses on the application of this rule by examining several passages in light of its principles.
This week’s lesson focuses on a law known as “First Mention.” This law is simple in its principle, but profound in its application. This law essentially uses the concept of “precedent” to assist the biblical interpreter in the proper application of a theological term or truth. If, then, I know how a term or concept has been used earlier in scripture, I can properly interpret a later understanding of the same term or principle.