Book review — The Doctrine of the Word of God, by John Frame

by Dan Phillips

---

NOTE: in case you're interested, I reviewed the NICOT/NT in Olive Tree software at my site, yesterday.

---

The Doctrine of the Word of God
by John Frame

(Presbyterian & Reformed, 2010)

Professor John Frame is a professor and a prodigious author of books on apologetics, theology, music in worship, ethical issues, and much else. Frame is, I know, a controversial figure in some circles. You'd think that a CalviDispieBaptoGelical such as I would be among his critics. Yet the truth is, I've profited from Frame's lectures and writings time and time again. My reading of The Doctrine of the Word of God was no exception.

An aside: seriously, pastordude, studentdude — you really ought to read out of your own little parochial circles. Sure, many writers (::cough::McLarenBellCampoloEtc::cough::) may be a pure and utter waste of time, but you really should let your thinking be stretched and challenged among Biblically faithful, godly, deeply thoughtful writers.

Such as John Frame.

The accolades from men such as Carson, Piper, Mayhue, Pratt, and Kelly are well-deserved. J. I. Packer calls the volume both "magisterial" (xxiii) and "pastoral" (xxiv) in the Foreword, and both are appropriate.

Let's take an overview. Imagine this — a book on Scripture that begins with two pages of Scripture lauding the excellencies of Scripture, which then is crowned by the simple profundity of the well-known song that begins, "Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so."

Then Frame provides a ten-page outline of the entire book, minus appendices (xiii-xxii). This is a helpful aid in keeping the shape of the forest in mind, whilst wandering amid the trees Prof. Frame points out for us. It is a singular feature; more authors should follow suit.

The next actually caught me by surprise. In the Table of Contents, one notices that Frame provides appendices. A lot of appendices. They run the alphabet from A to Q. How much of the book does that end up involving? This much:

That's right: on the left is the text, on the right, the rest. In a 684-page book, the text ends on p. 334. The rest is comprised of appendices, bibliography, and three indices. (No endnotes! Footnotes! Frame and P&R love and respect their readers!)

This is not a criticism, as the appendices provide worthwhile interaction with books, articles and movements, applying Frame's perspective to specifics such as issues of antithesis and rationality, charges of Biblicism, questions of the place of Christ and the Spirit, matters of worship and traditionalism, Dooyeweerdianism, and particular influential authors such as John Wenham, Peter Enns, and N. T. Wright.

As to the text itself, I was informed, challenged, and greatly helped. Several of Frame's insights had an impact on the way I presented the word of God in my first sermon series at CBC.

For readers new to Frame, here's what you can expect: he is (I'd say) a brilliant man who constantly interacts with Scripture in a very lively, thoughtful, probing manner. He is deep, yet readable, and he's greatly helped me think through some issues.

My favorite Frame anecdote was actually supplied by a friend, who shared about his father visiting him at seminary. One of my friend's roommates asked his father, “Were you in the same class as John Frame?”

My friend's dad paused a moment, then responded, “No one was in the same class as John Frame.”

Back to the book.

Frame treats of Scripture's self-testimony well and at length. He identifies the "main contention" of his book thus:

God's speech to man is real speech. It is very much like one person speaking to another. God speaks so that we can understand him and respond appropriately. Appropriate responses are of many kinds: belief, obedience, affection, repentance, laughter, pain, sadness and so on. God's speech is often propositional: God's conveying information to us. But it is far more than that. It includes all the features, functions, beauty, and richness of language that we see in human communication, and more. ...My thesis is that God's word, in all its qualities and aspects, is a personal communication from him to us. (3)

He develops Scripture as necessarily evocative of a wide variety of responses as befitting the individual texts, including belief, obedience, delight, repentance mourning (4). Scripture has inherent authority, which he defines as a "capacity to create an obligation in the hearer" (5)

So in Scripture God speaks, He speaks to us, and He speaks as Lord. His word is authoritative, and we are obliged by a wide variety of genera to respond in a wide variety of ways. God's whole word engages the whole man.

Frame then moves to identify the shocking defection of scholars and (then) pastors from that Biblical position. I've never seen a fresher, better analysis and representation of the Academy's betrayal. He says it began with the assertion of "intellectual autonomy" or "autonomous reasoning," with the corollary assumption that "anyone who disagreed was simply not a scholar, not qualified to do serious research" (19).

The effects of this seismic shift came quickly and suddenly into the church:

It all happened very quickly. There was no academic debate on whether it is right for human beings to exercise reason without the authority of God's revelation. There was not much argument about whether the universities should change their time-honored commitments to divine revelation. Rather, major figures simply began teaching from the new point of view, and there was no significant resistance. They accepted the assumption of autonomy and saw to it that their successors accepted it, too. ...The conservatives did not know what hit them. (19)

Further:

This change was astonishing. The adoption of intellectual autonomy as a theological principle was certainly at least as important as the church's adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity in 381, or the doctrine of the two natures of Christ in 451. Yet without any council, without any significant debate, much of the church during the period 1650 to the present came to adopt the principle of intellectual autonomy in place of the authority of God's personal words. But this new doctrine changed everything. Given intellectual autonomy, there is no reason to accept supernatural biblical teachings such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. The virgin birth, miracles, atonement, resurrection, and glorious return of Jesus are on this basis no longer defensible. (20)

One more:

...if human reason is autonomous, the God of the Bible does not exist, for his very nature as the Creator excludes the autonomy of his creatures. And in fact nothing at all can be validated by autonomous reason, for...such reasoning leads to a rationalist-irrationalist dialectic, which destroys all knowledge. For that pottage, much of the church has forsaken its birthright, God's personal word. (20)

The rest of the book proves this from Scripture, develops it, and applies it.

In the course of this feast, Frame deals with propositional truth, authority, inerrancy, sufficiency, transmission, and translations. Let me just single out two more favorite points from the book, and finish by (surprise) recommending it heartily.

Frame faces head-on the charge that, since we don't have the autographa, inerrancy is irrelevant. He explains that inerrancy does not adhere to a particular sheet of papyrus, but to the text written on that sheet. From this, he argues that, while we do not possess the autographic manuscripts, we do indeed present the autographic (and therefore inerrant) text of Scripture.

Quoting Greg Bahnsen with approval, Frame notes that the autograph is "the first completed, personal, or approved transcription of a unique word-group composed by its author," certified by the author in some way, such as sending an epistle to a church  (241). Again, "The autographic text has been almost entirely preserved, accessible through manuscripts available to us and through the science of textual criticism" (252, emphasis original). What is more, "The distinctive teaching of the Scriptures has been entirely preserved, given the beneficial redundancy of doctrinal teaching in Scripture" (ibid, emphasis original).

That thought was immensely helpful to me. The other particular emphasis that stayed with me is found throughout the book, not easily reducible to one quotation. It is that God is present to me (and to His people) in His word. In His word He draws near, He speaks personally, and He exercises His Lordship. Tis affects me as a Christian, and as a preacher of God's Word.

The only disappointment I had was in his chapter on the Canon (133-139). It isn't that Frame's work is not helpful; it is. But my unreasonable expectation was that Frame would answer all my questions, but instead he understandably notes that "The present volume cannot enter into the details of this debate," and since this volume "is a systematic theological treatment, not a historical study" (135), he doesn't get fully into the issue. I would say that in this, Frame is a victim of my high estimation of him.

John Frame's The Doctrine of the Word of God is a challenging, informative, forceful and helpful book. I highly recommend it.

NOTE: this book was provided by P&R as a review copy.

---

Warfield on textual evidence for inspiration as an avalanche

by Dan Phillips

I'm reading through John Frame's Doctrine of the Word of God, and his Appendix F pointed me to a useful (and uncharacteristically humorous) illustration given by the great B. B. Warfield in his own great work, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, from which I'll break up a portion of a massive paragraph.

After examining a number of passages that attest to Scripture's inspiration and authority, Warfield says:

But no grosser misconception could be conceived than that the Scriptures bear witness to their own plenary inspiration in these outstanding texts alone. These are but the culminating passages of a pervasive testimony to the divine character of Scripture, which fills the whole New Testament; and which includes not only such direct assertions of divinity and infallibility for Scripture as these, but, along with them, an endless variety of expressions of confidence in, and phenomena of use of, Scripture which are irresistible in their teaching when it is once fairly apprehended.

The induction must be broad enough to embrace, and give their full weight to, a great variety of such facts as these: the lofty titles which are given to Scripture, and by which it is cited, such as “Scripture,” “the Scriptures,” even that almost awful title, “the Oracles of God”; the significant formulæ by which it is quoted, “It is written,” “It is spoken,” “It says,” “God says”; such modes of adducing it as betray that to the writer “Scripture says” is equivalent to “God says,” and even its narrative parts are conceived as direct utterances of God; the attribution to Scripture, as such, of divine qualities and acts, as in such phrases as “the Scriptures foresaw”; the ascription of the Scriptures, in whole or in their several parts as occasionally adduced, to the Holy Spirit as their author, while the human writers are treated as merely his media of expression; the reverence and trust shown, and the significance and authority ascribed, to the very words of Scripture; and the general attitude of entire subjection to every declaration of Scripture of whatever kind, which characterizes every line of the New Testament.

The effort to explain away the Bible’s witness to its plenary inspiration reminds one of a man standing safely in his laboratory and elaborately expounding—possibly by the aid of diagrams and mathematical formulæ—how every stone in an avalanche has a defined pathway and may easily be dodged by one of some presence of mind. We may fancy such an elaborate trifler’s triumph as he would analyze the avalanche into its constituent stones, and demonstrate of stone after stone that its pathway is definite, limited, and may easily be avoided. But avalanches, unfortunately, do not come upon us, stone by stone, one at a time, courteously leaving us opportunity to withdraw from the pathway of each in turn: but all at once, in a roaring mass of destruction. Just so we may explain away a text or two which teach plenary inspiration, to our own closet satisfaction, dealing with them each without reference to its relation to the others: but these texts of ours, again, unfortunately do not come upon us in this artificial isolation; neither are they few in number. There are scores, hundreds, of them: and they come bursting upon us in one solid mass. Explain them away? We should have to explain away the whole New Testament. What a pity it is that we cannot see and feel the avalanche of texts beneath which we may lie hopelessly buried, as clearly as we may see and feel an avalanche of stones!

Warfield, B. B. (2008). The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume 1: Revelation and Inspiration (65–66). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

---

The "to err is human" dodge (NEXT! #29)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: The Bible can't be inerrant because it is human speech, and all human speech is errant.

Response: Including that assertion? (Oopsie.)

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

Literately

by Frank Turk

This is a reprint from 2010, and back then, I tweeted the following:

Of course, my iPod corrects a lot of typos (whether they need it or not), but it didn't catch that one. So much for actually-literate. But some have asked, “well, what do you mean by that?” That’s a reasonable question, and I have a reasonable answer.

The biggest book in the Bible is the book of Psalms, yes? It’s huge. Nothing compares to it as a feat of literature, or, if I may be so bold, as a feat of theological exposition. And you would think that, for the latter to be true, it would have to be rote seminarian essays in somewhat-bloodless prose. But instead we get stuff like this in Psalms:

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!
Let Israel say, "His steadfast love endures forever."
Let the house of Aaron say, "His steadfast love endures forever."
Let those who fear the LORD say, "His steadfast love endures forever."
Out of my distress I called on the LORD; the LORD answered me and set me free.
The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?
The LORD is on my side as my helper; I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.
All nations surrounded me; in the name of the LORD I cut them off!
They surrounded me, surrounded me on every side; in the name of the LORD I cut them off!
They surrounded me like bees; they went out like a fire among thorns;
in the name of the LORD I cut them off!
I was pushed hard, so that I was falling, but the LORD helped me. [Ps 118:1-16]

That’s not an essay. That’s not a book report. That’s not “exposition” in the sense that it has a topic sentence, three examples and a summary statement. It’s a poem about the grace of God.

Now, that should be enough to run after the idea of literate reading – for example, is this poem about a promise being made or a promise being kept? Why is that distinction necessary to comprehend and therefore interpret the meaning of the Psalmist’s thanks to YHVH? A literate person would grasp this immediately and know it’s part of what we’re getting ourselves into here.

But there’s more to it than that. This poem occurs in the Old Testament, and speaks to both some event in the history of Israel, and ultimately to the victory of Christ. Therefore the literate reader sees this psalm occurring in the narrative of the Gospel; that is, somehow the story of which it is a part is necessary and meaningful for the reader who is actually reading the psalm. The ESV study Bible tells us that this is the Psalm the crowds sang as Jesus entered Jerusalem in triumph, and that Christ intimated it would be sung at his second coming.

Now seriously: so what? Is this just another kind of internet snobbery about to make the rounds? Is this just another way to look down the nose at other people and dismiss their use of Scripture and their kind of faith in Christ?

It could be. In fact, I would say that in some circles it is. For me, I bring it up for one reason only.

We love the Bible: all you readers and me love the Bible. Let’s not love it like we love Ice Cream – that is, for the short and self-centered moment in which it tastes sweet and cold. Let’s love it like a living and active thing which will cut us meat from bone, and also equip us, and inform us – if we treat it like what it is.

But this was said to me yesterday, also via Twitter:

I agree. It's most common to tell stories in Scripture. But it is not the way the apostles taught the Church ab Christ.

There are at least three things wrong with this view of the NT which point to a deficiency in having or showing knowledge of literature, writing, etc.:

[1] The apostles preached the Gospel, but they aren’t hardly the only place where Christ is expounded and extolled. For example, the letter to the Hebrews is almost entirely a book about Christ fulfilling the Old Covenant – which is a narrative point, requiring all the types and symbols, and yields a rich theology of salvation in the Bible.

[2] This completely overlooks the role of the four Gospels in presenting the Gospel, and neglects the book of Acts as a book which informs us on everything from soteriology to evangelism to ecclesiology.

[3] This denigrates the Old Testament in an entirely unacceptable way because it ignores the apostolic use of the OT, and it ignores the nearly-complete apostolic reliance on it as the firm foundation of scripture.

The bottom line is that the Bible – not our doctrines of the Bible – will do more to help us reform ourselves and evangelize and inform others than our cultural pup tents set up for a short time in the changing world will do. We have to read it as if it was literature and not as if it was merely the annotated and unabridged version of the reformed confessions.

---

Bible reading for 2012, and why

by Dan Phillips

Nate Bingham posts a nifty list of reading plans. All sorts of blogs are pointing you to reading plans. Let me help by leaning on and applying some why pressure, along with the what.

If you bumbled through 2011 without a plan, you really should adopt one. If you are a Christian and have never yet read through the entire Bible — which should be a perfect application of the word "inconceivable" — you really really should adopt a plan.

Why a plan? One is mindful of the possibly apocryphal story of the evangelist who was set upon by a critic, who announced, "Sir, I do not like your methods!" The man replied, "I am always glad to hear of a better approach. What is yours?" The critic stammered, "Why, I...I don't have one."

"I like mine better" was the response. And while pragmatism is a baneful worldview, there is something to be said for a touch of it once one has set on the needed goal within a God-centered worldview. Find the goal that pleases God, then figure out how to get there from here.

But what is the goal? God's vision for His church is very every-member, every-part, isn't it? Christ died for all of His people, not more for some and less for others (2 Cor. 5:14-15). God raised all believers to spiritual life by sovereign grace (Eph. 2:1ff.). Christ baptized all believers into His body in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), and thus constituted all of them as functional parts of that body, with a useful ministry for all of us (1 Cor. 12-14). The gifted men serve the local church that all parts of it may grow into doctrinal stability and maturity, by the contribution of each and every part of that body (Eph. 4:10-16). And that is why the letters of the New Testament are by and large addressed to all believers, to the extent that most of Paul's letters derive their names from the local churches to which each is sent.

That being the case, what is each of our part, in showing proper faith and fear and honor to God? After all, if we say we are Christians, are we not saying we are disciples (Acts 11:26)? And if we say we are disciples, do we not know that the word means "students"? And if so, what do we imagine that we are to study? Do we not even know that our Lord Himself defined in so many words what He intends our course of study and life to consist of?

 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,  and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

Well, there it is, isn't it?

• If we want to be free, we must know the truth
• If we want to know the truth, we must truly be Christ's disciples
• If we want to be Christ's disciples, we must continue in His word

This is not a process that another can do for us. My wife can't eat for me. My children can't drink for me. Our pastor can't grow for us, or learn for us. Each of us must do what God has pressed on us.

But isn't the mere fact that I even need to make this case itself a sign of the wretched state of the church? I don't have to talk my kids into eating chocolate or cookies. By saying we are Christians, aren't we at least saying we believe God? Don't we even know that much? And do we know what God says about the value of His word (Ps. 1; 119, and on and on)?

Apparently not.

But here we are at this blog, all professedly big tough healthy Bible believers. Yet I know as sure as I am sitting here typing, that there are those reading who do not match walk to talk, practice to theory. I'm not here to rail at you; God knows my life does not measure up to my theory in all respects. But God helping me, I'm working at it, and I'm doing so with the loving prods and pokes of brothers and sisters.

And that is what this is for you: a loving prod, a loving poke.

You've got a good theory. Now do it. Pick a plan. Any plan is better than no plan. Play to your strength. If you're a morning person, read it first thing (this is what I found decades ago to be my path). If not, do it in the evening or midday. There is no law for a time to pick; but there is a law to do it. Pick a plan, pick a time, and do it. Be at it. Do what works. Don't scale the Alps in one day, but do set foot on the slope; and then another, and then another, and then another.

Amen.

---

Self-esteem, Possibility Thinking, and Philippians 4:13

by Phil Johnson



hilippians 4:13 famously says, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me." There is perhaps no more confident statement in all of Scripture.

But it's not brazen self-confidence. It is confidence in the power of Christ.

That verse is not a manifesto for self-esteem and possibility thinking—although it is often used that way. People quote the verse as if it meant "With Jesus' help you can achieve whatever dream you have for yourself." That's not the idea at all. Paul is speaking as a man who wants to do the will of God and knows he is too weak and sinful to do it, but he is laying hold of Christ's power to do in him what he knows he cannot do on his own.

The appropriate cross-reference is 2 Corinthians 3:5: "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God." Paul is simply modeling the principle he gave as an imperaive in Ephesians 6:10: "Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might."

There's not room for as much as an iota of carnal self-esteem, if you understand that principle.

---

The need for balance in preaching

by Dan Phillips

Many of you good brothers get to do what others of us long to do but are not Providentially enabled to do: you preach the Word, as your sole focus. You don't preach-when-invited, you don't preach-and-do-auto-detailing, you don't preach-and-be-a-security-guard. You pastor a church, and that's your sole livelihood. You visit, counsel, disciple, marry, bury, chair, guide, "vision"ize...

...and you preach.

You preach maybe 2-5 sermons/messages a week. Maybe two on Sunday, maybe a Sunday School, maybe a Wednesday night, maybe a men's group or some-such. Bi/tri-vocationals are blessed if they can manage 1-2 messages a week (I speak from experience), but you have a bit more freedom in terms of time and opportunities. Sure, you may have administrative and other responsibilities the others don't, but you may have time and support they don't, as well.

My question for your ponderment today is as suggested by the title: do you strive for balance in your preaching?

I have to chuckle at the variety of fire-alarms and flashing lights that word has to set off, so let me get right to defining. Do I mean "balancing" law and gospel, "balancing" social justice and personal ethics, "balancing" theory and practice, "balancing" evangelism and edification, "balancing" Old and New...? What kind of "balance"?

I define "balance" the way the man defines "Gun Control": hitting only what I aim at. So by "balance" here, I mean preaching everything in the Bible, evenly (cf. "all Scripture" is God-breathed and profitable; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

"Impossible! Can't be done!" comes the instant response. Oh, I don't know. Given a long enough ministry, and enough messages a week, and good health... you could do it. But I know what you mean. You can't preach every verse in detailed exposition with just two or three messages a week in a normal 3-5 year stint. That's probably true.

In response, first I'll stray from my point. (Hey, it's my post; I can do that if I want. I mean, as long as it's in the post and by me, it's on-topic, right? Moo hoo wah ha ha ha! Ahem.)

So in straying I'll just mention that I think the 3-5 year model is a pity. I don't begrudge brothers from longing for an ever-expanding scope of ministry as they advance in their abilities, if God gives the opportunity to them. Personal ambition for greatness and fame and adoration is one thing, and it's a wicked thing. Ambition to produce maximum fruit with maximum depth and breadth for the glory and kingdom of God is quite another, and I think it's akin to the apostle's own ambition (cf. Rom. 15:20; Col. 4:3; 2 Thess. 3:1).

Having said that, I do think it's low to take a church, bid them to trust your leadership, and all the while have your eye on the door — like a man dating a marriage-minded woman and pitching woo for a few years while busily scanning the lonely-hearts web sites for Miss Perfect.

Plus, maybe we should re-examine our approach of focusing everything on Sunday morning. Sure, most people are there, at that meeting; I understand that, I don't rail against it. But while you're preaching John or Romans on Sunday morning, you could be preaching Deuteronomy on Tuesday and Proverbs on Thursday. And you could rotate it regularly, so that each series gets moved to each venue.

Okay, enough crazy-talk for now. Back to my actual point. And as I loom in upon it, please, stay focused: I am not talking-about, I'm talking-to. I'm talking to everyone reading this post, and obviously particularly to the pastors reading this post. I'm not covertly making comments about this or that brother-servant. I'm talking to you, not about him.

My point is I think it's a "fail" just to have a long-term ministry based solely on Paul's letters, or the Gospels, or any other portion in exclusion to the rest. Oh, I know that some of the most famous and effective preachers are mainly known for preaching Paul, or the Gospels; or for spending fourteen weeks on a single conjunction.

In reply, let me say what I said (decades ago) to the gent who blamed the Holy Spirit for his teaching long, long, long Bible studies, citing the example of Paul preaching until midnight in Acts 20. "Well then, brother," said I, "you'd better also be able to raise the dead, as Paul did when Eutychus dozed off."

Maybe Right Hon. Rev. Dr. Thingummy can have a profitable ministry belaboring antepenultimate accents and the characteristics of each of the seven horns, a month at a time; but we lesser lights should probably have different goals.

Which goals?

All of it. The whole Bible. Make that, I say, your aim. I know you may well not hit that target — after all, what good target do we ever consciously hit dead-center? But it's best to have a good target, isn't it? I think that is the best target for a preacher.

That's the best way we can follow Paul's example:

"Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:26-27)

Now, I know that the right man could declare "the whole counsel of God" from a single well-chosen verse. But most of us are not that man. Most of us are far dimmer bulbs than that. If we're candid, we know that we have our hobby-horses, our strengths, and our weaknesses. We naturally are inclined to play to the one, and to flee the other.

It just has always seemed to me that the best way to keep ourselves honest is to go verse-by-verse through books, and to do it broadly. "Best," I say, but of course not only and not infallible. Every one of us has it in us to make a bee-line to our favorite subject, no matter what the verse. ("Of course, as we all know, 'Parbar' starts with a 'p'... and so does propitiation. Speaking of which...")

So I urge you pastors — who, I know, are far more familiar with your particular flocks than I — to consider if you can't and shouldn't challenge yourself to strive for greater balance. Do you find yourself just naturally inclining to Paul's letters? Is Romans followed by Ephesians, and then Colossians and Philippians... and that's fifteen years, right there? What about Peter's letters? Hebrews? James?

But supposing you're pretty good in going around the New Testament — what of the other two-thirds of the Bible? Were they not still written for our instruction (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11)? Does that largest portion still have the power to make one wise resulting in Christ-centered salvation and wisdom for Christian living (2 Tim. 3:15-17)? Does it still point to Christ (Lk. 24:27, 44-46)? Does the Holy Spirit still speak to us through it (Heb. 3:7ff.)? Then why not dive in to it at least equally with the NT? When Paul said "whole counsel," do you really think he meant Romans and Ephesians, or the Gospel of John, and not Deuteronomy and Genesis and Isaiah?

You see, when I conceived of this post, I was really going to target the need to preach specifics along with generalities. I might have taken you down the well-trodden path of comparing Ephesians 1—3 (doctrine) and Ephesians 4—6 (application). I was going to scold preachers who preach exclusively on Biblical texts dealing with about justification, election, providence and the like without ever preaching on Biblical texts dealing with marriage, parenting, work, politics and the like.

But then I realized: preach the Word, and that will be taken care of. Preach Romans... and Proverbs!  Preach Leviticus... and 1 John! Preach Matthew... and Zechariah!

Preach the Word to the best of the ability God gives you, and I think you're far likelier to hit balance, as defined by God.

---

Tersely put: if God has spoken...

by Dan Phillips

Note: My blog-presence and ability to interact in the meta will probably be limited to nil this week. I explain why over at my blog. Meanwhile, here is this designedly terse post. Like the last one, I think there are enough ramifications, if we think it through, for a few hundred comments. Read the other post, and you'll understand that my ability to interact will be little to none. Be good, now.

If God has spoken, and if we have those words, that reality changes everything for us.

---

Words, words and words

by Dan Phillips

I once taught a 12-week series on sanctification without ever using the word. Itaught an eight-week series on incarnation without ever using the word. — Rick Warren

...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. — Paul

There are words, then there are words, and then there are words, aren't there?

Biblical faith is a faith of words. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ," we read (Romans 10:17). "Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth," we read (John 17:17).

Well, now, look there: "sanctify," Jesus says. What does that mean? It isn't a word used in common conversation, at least not in the way Jesus used it. Takes some explaining, doesn't it? And whose job is it to explain it?

"Preach the word," Paul tells young pastor Timothy. He tells him to do it above all things (v. 1). In fact, Paul says that God values that labor of preaching and doctrinal teaching more than He values any other pastoral activity (1 Timothy 5:17). So it is the pastor's job to explain what all those words mean. Words like "sanctify."

Because Jesus uses those words, and He moves His apostles to use them. Words like sanctify and justify and impute and propitiate and redeem. We don't commonly use any of those words as Jesus and the apostles used them. We need someone to help us understand them. That "someone," God says, is the pastor.

Yet here is pastor Rick Warren saying, with an unmistakable tone of pride, that he "taught a 12-week series on sanctification without ever using the word." Twelve weeks on a topic, yet not one of his hearers would have been able to connect what he had said with the word that Jesus or His apostles had used. Why? How? Well, if Pastor Warren is to be taken at his word, he had to avoid reading any of the twenty-one verses in the ESV NT that use some form of "sanctify." So what did Warren use for source material? We are left to wonder, and to surmise that his hearers came away understanding Pastor Warren's thoughts on the subject, but not God's words on it.

I can only speak for myself: I would think that, if I had taught for three months on a Biblical topic without my hearers being able to connect it with Biblical words, I would feel I'd been a miserable failure.

Because you see sanctify is a big Bible word, as are holy and holiness. If I am not teaching people about those Bible words, I am not teaching them about the Bible.

For the Christian, those words are vital words indeed.

And then there are words that are not directly-Biblical, but they are pretty hard to avoid if you're trying to teach the Bible. Wouldn't incarnation be one of those words? What is John 1:14 about, if not incarnation? That isn't even really that uncommon of a word. I think a great many secular people understand the concept just fine. Why ever would a Bible teacher (i.e. pastor) want to avoid such a word, let alone pride himself on avoiding such a word?

Other similar words which express Biblical truth might include Trinity, and inerrancy, and canonicity. How could one teach very broadly in the Bible without engaging and eventually using such concepts?

Yet now I will leap past a possible third category of words (i.e. more advanced theological terms like aseity and infralapsarian) to a fourth: idiomatic, non-essential words raised to an unwarranted level of importance.

Here I am thinking of teachers like the late Col. Robert Thieme Jr., who invented an extremely technical catalog of terms used by no one else in church history, anywhere, ever. Even leaving aside the question of the Biblical accuracy of his teaching, the upshot I observed was that his disciples would be locked into Thieme-related churches. Everything else would seem shallow and watery, because they weren't getting the "deep truths" of alpha and bravo grace and rebound and so on. They find themselves isolated, divided from Christians of all ages and lands.

Or, to go to the Reformed tradition, there's Steve Brown. I shared concerns (here and here) about Brown's winsome way of grounding his teaching in personal stories, illustrations, and "Brownisms," rather than directly and consciously in Scripture and Scriptural words. The fruit often is disciples who can quote Brown fluently, but bristle at aspects of words from the Bible.

This is, I think, the inevitable fruit of substituting anything for teaching the words of Scripture.

God's intent seems to be unity. Certainly, Christ prays for unity in John 17. But God did a great deal to provide a basis for unity: there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, one body (Ephesians 4) — and one Bible. We believe that this Bible contains absolutely all the words of God we need on any subject (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And what is that Bible filled with? Words. Not one drawing, not one diagram: just words. Words like sanctification.

If a pastor doesn't consider it his very God-given job to explain and apply those words, then one must ask: what does he think his job is?

And if a pastor wouldn't count it a miserable failure if he did not succeed in explaining and applying those words, then one must ask: what would failure be?

---

Logos: two neat things — one new (new Greek NT!), one not

by Dan Phillips

While we're all waiting and hoping to hear from Phil... you get to hear from me, about Logos.

First: you all know how much I love me some BibleWorks 8. Mine is a love that cannot be denied.

However, I've been looking  for an opportunity to share one feature Logos has over BW8:
Layout of the Biblical texts.

That is, in BW8, the font is simply there. It's beautiful, it's clear, it's all the wonderful things that BW is — but it's all block-set. No paragraphs, and no broken margins for poetry. So recently when I wanted to do a read-through of the ESV of Amos, I simply used my Logos.

That would be a nice BW upgrade for BW9.

Second: Logos has just released a new critical edition of the Greek New Testament, for free. The edition was done by Michael W. Holmes and sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature.

I just read about it at the BibleWorks forums, and added it to my Logos yesterday, with no time for more than a hasty glance. You can read more about it here and here.

Logos is providing it to users free here. (You can also get a hard-copy next month.)

Holmes has taught in evangelical institutions, as you'll see in his bio. This may jar your impression of the SBL, as it does mine. However, lately, the SBL has apparently been letting (gasp!) evangelicals move up the bus a bit — a fact which has caused some panic and hysteria.

Good times.

UPDATE: now the multitalented Mike Hanel has made the SBLGNT available for BibleWorks 8 as well.
UPDATE II: and, thanks to Jim Darlack, the apparatus as well.

---

BibleWorks followup: resources

by Dan Phillips

I mentioned in my love note for BibleWorks 8 Tuesday that

[n]obody should think, "Yeah, sure, but you have to be a total brainiac to use it." Not at all. I'm pretty much a BW8 idiot, compared to the guys who post at the forum. I would really profit from a seminar; I'm only using [BibleWorks] for maybe 5-10% of what it can do — but that 5-10% is what I care most about right now.

Wellsir, Jim Barr of BibleWorks kindly emailed me, pointing out that a seminar he just recently gave at Luther Seminary is available online.

The seminar is about two hours long, and starts from the very basic basics, and goes on to demonstrate more advanced uses and complex searches, and the use of various tools, such as maps. If you're already a BW8 user, Jim's seminar will be helpful. But if you're considering buying and would like to see a demo — there y'go!

You can also find some user-created files and resources at the BibleWorks Blog, "run by Michael Hanel, a Ph.D. student in the Classics Department at the University of Cincinnati, and Jim Darlack, a librarian at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary." (Those guys are the brainiacs.)

Here I'll just pause and marvel at three things:

1. If you have any sense of history, isn't it simply amazing how many really powerful resources we have readily available to us today?
2. With that same sense, look back and marvel at the achievements of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon — who had few or none of those resources.
3. Finally and shamefacedly, I think how relatively little we (by which I mean I) have to show for the possession of all these fine, gleaming tools.

Want an interesting imagination-exercise? What would a Spurgeon or an Alford or an Edwards or a Westcott or a Calvin have done with the resources we have?

It is true that "If the axe is dull and he does not sharpen its edge, then he must exert more strength" (Ecclesiastes 10:10a). However, it's a poor craftsman who blames his tool... perhaps even a poorer one who expects the tool to do the work and show the skill and heart for him. The giants of yesterday, looming over our paltry accomplishments, bear eloquent witness: a heart that is ablaze with passionate, all-encompassing love for God will scoff at the paucity of tools, and forge ahead regardless.

Single-minded love and consecrated devotion matter far more than the fineness of one's tools.

But why pose an either/or? Why not put first things first, then bring in the second things in their service? Why not both?

God grant that it be so with us.

(By which I mean me.)

---

Another Bible-shilling post

by Frank Turk

Since Phil and Dan spent the first couple of days this week making you drool over software you can't possibly afford, I thought I'd show you what a luddite I am when it comes to Bible Study, and some on-the-cheap tricks for the rest of us who don't get free software because we're famous bloggers, and also don't have the budget of a small lawn-scaping business to fund our theology jones.



So first off: get over yourself when it comes to the physical bound book which we call the Bible. It's nearly impossible today to buy a Bible with a decent cover and real quality binding for less than $150.00 -- and when I say that, I know someone is going to come across with their anecdote about the $7 gift-and-award Bible Pastor Hallibut gave him at High School Graduation and how that cardboard-covered newsprint Bible has served him well lo these 40-aught years. I'm very proud of you. The rest of us will be using our Bibles daily and will destroy those leather-like Bibles which are everywhere in three years, and all the notes we have taken from the edifying sermons we have listened to will be lost forever when the folio from Micah 2 to Luke 18 falls out because the cheap glue holding the book together has finally dried up and turned to dust.

So get over the fact that the Bible has to be "bound", and get involved in the best invention since before Kindle: the loose-leaf Bible -- specifically, the ESV Loose-Leaf Bible. You can buy it in its own binder, but let me suggest to you that this completely fails to develop the genius of this product, and costs almost double what the plain pages will cost by themselves.

See: taking a loose-leaf Bible and putting it in one binder is simply thinking of the Bible as one discrete unit, and it's nothing of the sort. It's the ultimate study Bible just waiting to be born, and you just don't know it yet.

Imagine, if you will, the ability to actual capture all the notes you will ever take on every passage of Scripture in your Bible, and never losing those notes. I'm going to show you how to do that in just a second. But first you have to find this stuff:

Some Report Binders with the big sliding clips

Pre-drilled blank copy paper (at least 2 reams, but you may choose more if you're a real note-taker)

Sticky Tabs

I can smell the logs suddenly burning in your brain as I type -- some of you have already lost it because this is such a great idea. So OK: you went to the local Office Supply Outpost (that was easy!) and you got this stuff, and your ESV loose-leaf arrived in its box still wrapped in its plastic. You almost hate to unwrap the sheets because your child with the busy fingers will undoubtedly make a very complicated game of 52-card pick-up of this 1100+ pages if you leave it unattended for 4 minutes, but you must unwrap the Bible pages.

After the wrapper is gone, take the Bible and divide it up into sections. The real hard-core disciples here will make 66 books of the pile of paper -- maybe more if they go really hard-core into dividing up the book of Psalms. But divide the Bible up into the right number of sections to (A) match the number of report covers you bought, and (B) the right number of logical portable units for you. Mine is divided into 6 sections, but you might decide to give yourself more bound units so you can add more blank paper.

Here's where the busy-fingered child comes in: before you bind up the pages, you have to interleave blank pages for each printed page. Maybe you want two blank pages for each printed page -- which I think makes serious sense. One blank page per printed page means you only have one blank side for each printed side, and that's not even hardly enough for most of the NT, let alone Ezekiel or Daniel. But this prep work makes the final product entirely brilliant. You're going to interleave the blank pages to the printed pages, and make sure you keep the edges with the holes aligned.

When you're done about three days later, get out your report binders and -- get this now -- insert the printed-and-plain interleaved pages into the covers and clip the binding shut. If you have put multiple books of the Bible together, use the sticky tabs to mark the book separations so you have quick access, and that's really about it.

Now what you have is the ultimate note-taker's Bible in portable volumes. I will admit that it is cumbersome, but it is also indispensable for keeping your notes from Sunday School or "big church" all in one place for future reference. And if you're clever, it all comes together for less than $100.

Now, here's the test of fire: I am sure that Dan and Phil will both tell you that this solution is not as sweet as their solution for iBible library software for a multitude of reasons. I have one reason only for suggesting this solution: you can take my solution with you to the Pulpit.

See: neither Dan nor Phil would ever preach from the pulpit using a digital library on their laptop -- because let's face it: it would look like they are phoning it in. It would look unseemly to have your laptop open at the pulpit and to preach from something other than pages -- either printed or hand-written.

But if you stride up to the pulpit with your hand-written notes in your simply-bound report binder Bible, you have instant credibility. And you can keep all your notes right there in that Bible forever -- you can even add new pages after a couple of decades.

No controversy there, right? How will your Wednesday ever be the same? Enjoy & discuss!

---

Why I love BibleWorks 8

by Dan Phillips

M'man Phil Johnson's paean of praise to Logos 4 yesterday has moved me... to write about BibleWorks 8.

To clarify what is probably already clear, I'm neither arguing with nor disputing Phil. Particularly on the subject of e-Sword, which is an absolutely amazing program, considering that it's freeware. For many believers, that program is all they'll ever need.

My backstory is not as technical as Phil's. It's about how I've used hard-copy Bibles. Since I was a new believer, I always wanted Bibles with margins roomy enough to allow my notes. The first was a wide-margin KJV from Oxford. Later, I got a  wide-margin Greek New Testament which I had re-bound in leather.

However, the two I used most extensively were that Greek NT, and my NAS Ryrie Study Bible. I made marginal notes of varying kinds, but perhaps most were entering in some or all of the Hebrew or Greek text into the margin.

Or course, the troubles were several:

1. There was only so much room
2. I could only write (and read) so small; and
3. Every time I got a new Bible, I had to start over

At the same time, I used various Bible programs. I tried GRAMCORD in DOS, decades ago. Then I went to  the GUI program Bible Windows (now called Bibloi; haven't used it for years).

I started BibleWorks something like version 4, and have stayed with it. Let me tell you why I love BibleWorks today:

1. Economical. The amount of material you get for the one price is simple amazing. Check it out. Plus, there have been additional free updates. All of this is for the basic full-version price of $349. For most, that package would be sufficient, but there are a score of additional modules available.
2. Fast. What BW does, it does well-nigh instantaneously. I just upgraded my pc significantly. Additional RAM, CPU power, and a dedicated video card all have made my Logos a good bit spiffier. But BibleWorks? It was already really fast. It starts up faster... and that's about it. To be much faster, it would have to do the searches before I knew I wanted them. My point is that BW8 runs great on top-line pc's, but also runs great on aged pc's. You don't need to get the latest and greatest hardware to make BW8 hop and pop. It pretty much floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee. Seriously: enter a word, and bang! there's every occurrence. Click on one. Push a button. Bang! You see that verse in every version you want. Go to the Hebrew. Mouse-over a word, bam! Up pops a window with full parsing and basic definition. Right click a word. Select search on lemma. Bang! there's every use of that word in the Hebrew text. I could go on and on, but it's amazingly powerful and fast.
3. Notes. This is probably the single aspect that most has my heart. You know how you'll hear something great in a sermon, or read it in a book (or on a blog), or hear it in a conversation — something that sheds significant light on a verse or passage? Then two days later, it's gone? Doesn't have to be. BibleWorks makes it possible to make extended notes, in any font, with any hyperlinking, on any verse. With graphics. Move to another verse, and your notes are instantly saved. Go back to that verse — even just point your mouse at it — and your notes instantly display. I now have countless, countless notes on hundreds of verses, from my own observations, sermons, books, hymns, web sites, conversations, studies — all permanently stored in conjunction with my BW8. Get a laptop? New pc? No problem: just copy your Notes folder to a flash drive, then copy from there to your new device, and you can take up where you left off.

4. No, really, notes! I love that feature so much, it deserves a second entry. My notes contain excerpts from Bible journals, anecdotes, textbooks, grammars, pictures, maps, and personal reflections that would otherwise have been lost. Now they're just there, in a flash. I use this in conjunction with Logos, copying what I find (with a great expenditure of time) there into the BW8 notes, for lightning-fast access when I need it. This feature alone sells me.
5. Editor. In addition to the verse-by-verse notes, there's a fully-functional editor. So if you're doing a word-study, or a book-study, you can drag the Hebrew or Greek (or English or Spanish or whatever) into the Editor to build your document.
6. Dedicated, responsive support. The BibleWorks forum is constantly monitored by the geniuses who create and maintain BW. When a problem crops up, they're on it like an Emergent on a frappé, and the next day's update will fix it. Bug fixes don't wait for months, they're sent out as they occur. Plus, email tech support is also always thoroughly and courteously responsive.
7. This! Seriously! How could I not?

Nobody should think, "Yeah, sure, but you have to be a total brainiac to use it." Not at all. I'm pretty much a BW8 idiot, compared to the guys who post at the forum. I would really profit from a seminar; I'm only using it for maybe 5-10% of what it can do — but that 5-10% is what I care most about right now.

(click to embiggen)

Unlike Phil, I don't have an iPad. I do have an iPhone, and on it, I never use Logos. It's simply too slow and unwieldy. Instead, I use Olive Tree's iPhone software. It's fast, powerful, intuitive, very nicely done.

So what about Logos? Simply and briefly, I love BibleWorks, but I deeply respect and use Logos. Any time you discuss it, the elephant in the room is always how expensive their material is (as I experienced here, for instance). But they are always having sales, plus there is community pricing and pre-publication pricing.

The aim of the two programs is different. BibleWorks is all about the text of Scripture, while Logos is a broader research tool. BibleWorks is like having a roomy desk with Biblical texts and exegetical tools right at hand. Logos is like having a fully-stocked library. Ideally, one should have both.

I do use Logos continually, and will enjoy it all the more now with the faster computer. But BibleWorks will remain my mainstay.

I think every pastor should have BibleWorks. If yours doesn't, it would make a terrific Christmas gift. I used part of a bonus once to give BW to a pastor I thought very well of, who was struggling by with GRAMCORD. He was bowled over. Is $349 too much for your wallet? Talk to the deacons or someone, and start a whisper-campaign to get the dough together, and do your whole church a favor by giving the pastor BibleWorks.

In sum: I respect, recommend, am grateful for and use Logos, and don't have a word of argument with anyone who loves and praises it.

But I love BibleWorks.

---