Thank you for all your interest in Out to Lunch.
While this site will remain up to maintain access to prior posts, all new posts and materials will appear at www.robfaircloth.com.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Biblical Theology Chapter Two: Covenants, &tc
Here Lawrence introduces the "tools" of biblical theology and how to use them.
Lawrence gives an example of the different "horizons" of a person's life: the public, personal, and private horizons. Each is true about the person, but doesn't give the entire picture. As you view the person from each horizon, you learn something more about who he is.
Similarly, we view God's revelation of himself in different horizons: the textual, epochal, and canonical horizons.
The textual horizon, per Lawrence, is the closest view and consists of what the text actually contains: its language, verbiage, and terminology. The epochal horizon and canonical horizon seem to overlap somwehat in Lawrence's description.
Epochs are sometimes delineated by the presence of a new covenant -- or promise by God -- for instance. Epochs seem to be turning points at which at bit more of the revelatory curtain is pulled back to expose God's design and plan of redemption (called "progressive revelation" by some). Lawrence cites the division between the Old and New Testaments as an obvious epochal division.
Covenants are God's promise to men regarding future salvation and blessing. These are ultimately fulfilled in Christ.
Adressing a passage of Scripture this way would initially reveal the textual horizon -- what the text actually says -- then the reader would "back out" a bit and view the epochal horizon -- what stage of redemptive history the text was given -- then assess the covenantal horizon and how this particular text might have been fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus, or how it will be fulfilled in his second coming.
Lawrence uses as an example of this process a text that fits all three horizons, but there are some passages for which the "horizon" view might not work so easily, and Lawrence gives no guidance at this point regarding how to treat those passages.
Even so, Lawrence's description is useful, and helpful to emphasize the importance of viewing each passage of Scripture no only in isolation, but in connection with other teachings of Scripture; in considering, as it were, the stage of redemptive history in which the passage was given.
Lawrence's next chapter addresses prophecy and typology, among other things.
Lawrence gives an example of the different "horizons" of a person's life: the public, personal, and private horizons. Each is true about the person, but doesn't give the entire picture. As you view the person from each horizon, you learn something more about who he is.
Similarly, we view God's revelation of himself in different horizons: the textual, epochal, and canonical horizons.
The textual horizon, per Lawrence, is the closest view and consists of what the text actually contains: its language, verbiage, and terminology. The epochal horizon and canonical horizon seem to overlap somwehat in Lawrence's description.
Epochs are sometimes delineated by the presence of a new covenant -- or promise by God -- for instance. Epochs seem to be turning points at which at bit more of the revelatory curtain is pulled back to expose God's design and plan of redemption (called "progressive revelation" by some). Lawrence cites the division between the Old and New Testaments as an obvious epochal division.
Covenants are God's promise to men regarding future salvation and blessing. These are ultimately fulfilled in Christ.
Adressing a passage of Scripture this way would initially reveal the textual horizon -- what the text actually says -- then the reader would "back out" a bit and view the epochal horizon -- what stage of redemptive history the text was given -- then assess the covenantal horizon and how this particular text might have been fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus, or how it will be fulfilled in his second coming.
Lawrence uses as an example of this process a text that fits all three horizons, but there are some passages for which the "horizon" view might not work so easily, and Lawrence gives no guidance at this point regarding how to treat those passages.
Even so, Lawrence's description is useful, and helpful to emphasize the importance of viewing each passage of Scripture no only in isolation, but in connection with other teachings of Scripture; in considering, as it were, the stage of redemptive history in which the passage was given.
Lawrence's next chapter addresses prophecy and typology, among other things.
Westboro Baptist Church & the Supreme Court
One would be hard-pressed to find in the rantings of Westboro Baptist Church picketers anything resembling the biblical gospel.
[As Ed Stetzer (@edstetzer) said, the only thing correct in the name is the congregation's location.]
Even finding an example of biblical prophecy -- the "forthtelling" which indicted God's people for violations of the covenant relationship -- in Westboro's picketing seems an effort in futility.
Yet as much as biblical Christ-followers cringe at the apparent distortion of the biblical gospel, the abuse of the prophetic role in society, and the consequent maligning of the gospel and God,the Supreme Court is right.
Under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, the government has no right to decide what constitutes a true church, what constitutes a biblical -- or even true -- message, or what people claiming the name of Christ can shout from a street corner.
In short, the Supreme Court is not a "repugnance cop."
If it were, we would look much more like the Middle East despots who are even now being toppled in part because of such behavior.
And, given the world-wide tenor of attitude toward Christian belief, American believers should be thankful that for now our government protects the right of believers not only to practice their faith free of public intrustion, but also to talk about it openly.
This is good news in light of the problems that open-air evangelism is experiencing in Michigan, outside an Islamic festival. Good news in light of the United Kingdom's disqualification of foster parents because of their biblical belief against homosexuality. Good news in light of the killing of a Pakistani minority minister who refused to prosecute Christians. Good news, indeed.
So while Christ-followers pray for Westboro members to examine their hearts and words, we express our thanks to God that Westboro is still able, in this country, to reveal even uncharitable hearts and express even hurtful words without repercussion.
[As Ed Stetzer (@edstetzer) said, the only thing correct in the name is the congregation's location.]
Even finding an example of biblical prophecy -- the "forthtelling" which indicted God's people for violations of the covenant relationship -- in Westboro's picketing seems an effort in futility.
Yet as much as biblical Christ-followers cringe at the apparent distortion of the biblical gospel, the abuse of the prophetic role in society, and the consequent maligning of the gospel and God,the Supreme Court is right.
Under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, the government has no right to decide what constitutes a true church, what constitutes a biblical -- or even true -- message, or what people claiming the name of Christ can shout from a street corner.
In short, the Supreme Court is not a "repugnance cop."
If it were, we would look much more like the Middle East despots who are even now being toppled in part because of such behavior.
And, given the world-wide tenor of attitude toward Christian belief, American believers should be thankful that for now our government protects the right of believers not only to practice their faith free of public intrustion, but also to talk about it openly.
This is good news in light of the problems that open-air evangelism is experiencing in Michigan, outside an Islamic festival. Good news in light of the United Kingdom's disqualification of foster parents because of their biblical belief against homosexuality. Good news in light of the killing of a Pakistani minority minister who refused to prosecute Christians. Good news, indeed.
So while Christ-followers pray for Westboro members to examine their hearts and words, we express our thanks to God that Westboro is still able, in this country, to reveal even uncharitable hearts and express even hurtful words without repercussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)