Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Electronic Hermeneutics?

by

I just came across an intriguing entry in Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen’s Handbook of Biblical Criticism (3d ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), p. 53:

Electronic Hermeneutics refers to an emerging discussion concerning the rise of the digital age and its impact on religious communities and on the nature, place, and meaning of sacred texts such as the Bible within these communities and within the culture at large. Cognizant of how epochal shifts in the technology of communication have transformed human culture (as exemplified by the successive inventions of writing, printing, and the predigital electronic media), scholars are now investigating how the transition from printed text to the digital, mutlisensate worlds of hypertexts, hypermedia, interactivity, and “virtual reality” will shape human experience and communication. Biblical scholars have been among the first to make use of computer technology and to reflect on how changes in communication technology affect beliefs and practices. See W. J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977); R. Hodgson and P. A. Soukup, eds., From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating the Bible in New Media (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1997).

“Biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror”

by

Tom Schreiner‘s primarily positive review of Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity has a critical paragraph ending with a gem:

One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confident assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9:1 [2005]: 101, emphasis added).

Going to ETS/SBL next week?

by

The annual meetings for the Evangelical Theological Society (Nov 19-21) and Society of Biblical Literature (Nov 21-25) begin next week. (I’m planning to attend only ETS this year so that I can devote more time to preparing for my impending comprehensive exams!)

After attending ETS and SBL last year, I made two observations:

1. ETS and SBL differ in several ways.

  1. Requirements for full membership: ETS requires “a Th.M. degree or its equivalent” and adherence to its doctrinal basis. SBL requires a Ph.D. Only some members of ETS are members of SBL, i.e., those with Ph.D.s and who focus on the biblical disciplines.
  2. Size: ETS has over 4,000 members, and SBL has over 8,500 members. I’ve heard that about 2,000 people attend ETS’s annual meeting. SBL’s annual meeting last week drew over 10,000 people. Consequently, there are about ten times as many books for sale at the latter.
  3. Doctrine: ETS consists largely of professing evangelicals who are orthodox, but such people are a large minority in SBL, which does not have a doctrinal basis or statement. It is not surprising, then, that the SBL meeting is diverse, including conservative evangelicals, post-conservative evangelicals, liberals, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, and much more.

2. There are four prioritized reasons to attend ETS/SBL annual meetings.

(This is not original with me. I’ve heard D. A. Carson explain this a handful of times in various settings.)

  1. Network: Catch up with friends, and make new friends and acquaintances.
  2. Buy books: Everything is on sale, which warrants spending the majority of one’s book-buying budget. The stalls at SBL are superior.
  3. Meet re projects: If applicable, meet with certain people regarding various projects, proposals, contracts, etc.
  4. Attend sessions: If there is time, attend some sessions that you’d find profitable. Beginners often go with the mindset that #4 should be #1, but most valuable sesssions will be published shortly anyway. One exception for this general rule is when a particular session directly addresses a topic on which one is currently working.

Eusebius on Nero

by

Jenni and I are just finishing up Paul Maier‘s The Flames of Rome (cf. my thoughts on Maier’s Pontius Pilate), a “documentary novel” that fleshes out how Nero’s insanity affected early Christianity. While I was reading Eusebius‘ Church History today (translated by none other than Paul Maier), I nodded in agreement with Eusebius’ portrayal of Nero:

Once Nero’s power was firmly established, he plunged into nefarious vices and took up arms against the God of the universe. To describe his depravity is not part of the present work. Many have accurately recorded the facts about him, and from them any who wish may study his perverse and degenerate madness, which led him to destroy innumerable lives and finally to such indiscriminate murder that he did not spare even his nearest and dearest. With various sorts of deaths, he did away with his mother, brothers, and wife, as well as countless other near relatives, as if they were strangers and enemies. Despite all this, one crime still had to be added to his catalogue: he was the first of the emperors to be declared enemy of the Deity. To this the Roman Tertullian refers as follows: [Read more…] about Eusebius on Nero

Mike Bullmore’s 2008 Rom Lectures: “The Heart of Preaching and the Preacher’s Heart”

by

Dr. Mike Bullmore delivered the annual Rom lectures on October 7-9, 2008 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on “The Heart of Preaching and the Preacher’s Heart.” Q & A followed each of his three outstanding lectures:

  1. Session 1: The Functional Centrality of the Gospel in Preaching | 42:56
  2. Session 1: Q & A (beginning with responses from an M.Div. student, a Ph.D. student, and Pastor Lee Eclov) | 58:32
  3. Session 2: The Five Greatest Heart Challenges in Preaching | 41:18
  4. Session 2: Q & A (beginning with responses from Andy Naselli and Dr. Dick Averbeck) | 42:24
  5. Session 3: A Passion for the Gospel (Philippians 1) | 38:15
  6. Session 3: Q & A | 36:03

I was humbled that Dr. Scharf asked me to respond to Mike’s second lecture. [Read more…] about Mike Bullmore’s 2008 Rom Lectures: “The Heart of Preaching and the Preacher’s Heart”

Do Calvinists really believe in human responsibility?

by

Justin Taylor’s gentle, respectful response to John Piper notes this:

(1) The fact that God ordains all things (i.e., his secret will) has a limited effect on our decision making. It can’t prescribe how we act, but it can prevent us from having the wrong perspective (e.g., anxiety, fear, despair, misplaced trust, etc.). But in terms of interpreting events, the main way to read providence is backwards (as John Flavel wrote: “Some providences, like Hebrew letters, must be read backward”).

(2) The fact that God ordains means ensures that our actions have significance. The ordained outcome can never be seen as an excuse for complacency or fatalism.

Calvinists believe in God-ordained means. This is not merely a platitude. John M. Frame says it well in Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994):

The relation of divine sovereignty to human responsibility is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. It is plain from Scripture in any case that both are real and that both are important. Calvinistic theology is known for its emphasis on divine sovereignty—for its view that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). But in Calvinism there is at least an equal emphasis upon human responsibility.

An equal emphasis? Many would not be willing to say that about Calvinism. . . . God’s sovereignty does not exclude, but engages, human responsibility. Indeed, it is God’s sovereignty that grants human responsibility, that gives freedom and significance to human choices and actions, that ordains an important human role within God’s plan for history (pp. 14-15, emphasis added).