The Utter Folly and Anti-Gospel of Bible as Story/Narrative: Christian Academia is Making Fools of the Laity
All of the rage in our day is Bible as redemptive narrative. Yes, the story, or narrative that gives us the “big picture” of God’s redemptive story. This concept is packaged in feel-good truisms like “History is ‘His story.’” The Bible is about a person, Jesus Christ; so, would you make an instruction manual out of a person’s life story? Would you systematize a person’s life story? The idea is to be wowed by who God is personally, and He invites you into His story. “It’s a person—not a precept.”
This is all disingenuous because we are still dealing with hermeneutics. We are still dealing with exegesis verses eisegesis. The question of the day is still epistemology: how we know what we know. For you who want to romanticize our faith—it doesn’t work.
If the Bible is God’s revelation to man, and it is, be sure that he will also reveal how he wants his word to be interpreted. Fact is, the Bible has built-in rules for interpretation throughout. ANYrules of interpretation for a text must be validated by the Bible itself. So, what about Bible as story or narrative? After an exhaustive study on what the Bible would state about this interpretive model, it begs the question: where is it?
On that note, let’s start with a blog named “Istoria Ministries” by Reformed teacher/pastor Wade Burleson. The subtitle reads as follows:
Istoria is a Greek word that can be translated as both story and history. Istoria Ministries, led by Wade and Rachelle Burleson, helps people experience the life transforming power of Jesus Christ so that their story may become part of His story.
Burleson is right, it is a Greek word, but is it in the Greek New Testament? After hours of research, I cannot find it anywhere. In fact, Hebrew or Greek canon words that project the English idea of history, narrative, or story are either extremely scarce or nonexistent. The closest idea is the word “parable” which is a story that helps define truth. It’s a teaching tool. But in every case where a parable is implemented as a teaching method, the Bible plainly introduces it as such beforehand. It doesn’t appear that parables in the Bible are meant to be stories that explain the story.
The Greek word historia came about around 500 BC and means, “Inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation.” Prior to that, mythology ruled the day. Mythology is “Ideology in narrative form.” The word, “historia” was introduced into the English language as “story” in 1390 AD and had the same meaning as its Greek origin. But prior to that between 180 AD and 553 AD, particularly among European theologians, the concept of mythology as sacred narrative/novel was integrated into the concept of historia for the purposes of interpreting the Bible:
Melitios of Sardis who died in 180AD read the Old Testament as a typology – it is a preparation for the Messiah in a similar way that a sketch or a model is the preparation that an artist, sculpture or architect does before making the reality represented in the preliminary sketch or work. Theodore of Mopsuestia who died in 428AD gives us some sense about how Christians in the 5th Century approached the Scriptures. For though Theodore was condemned for his teachings long after his death by the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553, his methods in interpreting Scriptures were shared by St. John Chrysostom and others in the Antiochian tradition of interpretation.
“In this work (Commentary on the Psalms) it is evident, first, that Theodore is almost entirely concerned with the istoria of the biblical text rather than its theoria. By istoria I mean the narrative meaning of the text, not its literal or historical meaning. On the other hand, theoria refers to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture in Antiochene theological circles. Thus the istoria of any given text may also provide the theoria, since the narrative meaning on occasion can and does supply the spiritual sense.” (Harry Pappas in SACRED TEXT AND INTERPRETATION, Ed. Theodore Stylianopoulos, p 59-60).
Later in history, istoria became a term that referred to story painting or history painting:
History paintings usually depict a moment in a narrative story, rather than a specific and static subject, such as a portrait. The term is derived from the wider senses of the word historia in Latin and Italian, and essentially means “story painting”, rather than the painting of scenes from history in its narrower sense in modern English, for which the term historical painting may be used, especially for 19th century art. Paintings almost always contain a number of figures, often a large number. The genre includes depictions of moments in religious narratives, above all the Life of Christ, as well as narrative scenes from mythology, and also allegorical scenes. These groups were for long the most frequently painted; works such as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling are therefore history paintings, as are most very large paintings before the 19th century. The term covers large paintings in oil on canvas or fresco produced between the Renaissance and the late 19th century, after which the term is generally not used even for the many works that still meet the basic definition.
All in all, istoria is the integration of mythology and history as a way to interpret and communicate truth.
At the very least, to accept istoria in our day, one must assert that a Greek hermeneutic was accepted into an interpretive method grounded in Hebraic roots: this is extremely unlikely. But beyond that, the notion that the Bible should be interpreted in narrative form, even partially, eradicates the significance of the gospel. Throughout Scripture, the Bible is presented as LAW, and this is critical to the gospel. “Law,” “gospel,” “word,” “law and the prophets,” “Scripture,” “holy writ,” etc. are all used interchangeably to refer to the full counsel of God; ie., His full philosophical statement to man including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.
The objective law of God is intrinsic to gospel and eternal life. This is because eternal life and death are defined by being under the law or under grace. The linchpin of this is obedience. In an Old Testament passage that Peter alludes to (1Peter1:1, 2 → Exodus 24:7, 8) we read the following:
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Based on a commitment to understand and obey God’s law, they were sprinkled (splattered) with blood. The apostle Paul then explains what the results of that are:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Throughout the book of Romans, Paul describes two relationships to the law: under the law in regard to those who are hostile to it, but while under it see their need for Christ constantly. They see objectively where they fall short of the law. On the other hand, those who are under grace delight in the law and are able to please God by obeying it.
To take away from this construct by making the Bible a narrative rather than objective law is to drive a stake through the essence of the gospel. To put ourselves into a narrative rather than a seeking to understand God’s word for life application, and to beckon the lost to enter into a narrative rather than to repent and obey the gospel is antithetical to the true gospel.
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 14; Exhibit “A” for Southwood
“Lastly, what is the difference between this doctrine and the ‘wicked, lazy’ servant who hid his talent in the ground, and then returned to the master only what was initially given?”
I was sent a very interesting post by one of my readers the other day. It was a piece written by Southern Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, who I understand as having significant influence in the SBC. The post is entitled, “Therefore, Knowing the Terror of the Lord, We Persuade Men“ (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2011/11/therefore-knowing-terror-of-lord-we.html). The article is an outstanding specimen of New Calvinism and worthy of discussion. Again, if Southwood is taken over by the New Calvinist insurgents, at least everyone will know why it happened. And maybe this post will help by ringing a few bells heard at Southwood.
Like most New Calvinists, especially John Piper, Burleson likes to show his intellectual prowess by mentioning in his profile under Interests that he reads the classical works of the Puritans. Ever tried to read those? Does that make you feel inferior? That’s the idea. Go figure, all New Calvinist leaders read the Puritans and have no trouble understanding that stuff at all. Gee, what’s wrong with us? Burleson’s favorite books are “The Everlasting Love of God To His Elect” by John Gill and “The Life of God in the Soul of Man” by Henry Scougal, the same favorite books of John Piper. Gee, what a coincidence. Burleson’s blog contains 32 recent articles with Piper as the focal point.
However, Burleson is somewhat unique among New Calvinists by showing the New Calvinist kinship to Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology. Most New Calvinists stay aloof from this connection because it enables the possible connecting of dots from the Australian Forum to the present-day movement. Zens also embodies the Adventist flavor of the movement as well. I have been contacted by a discernment ministry which I will not name that is focusing on Zens’ Adventist leanings. Burleson says this about Zens on his blog:
One of my favorite theologians is Jon Zens. Jon edits the quarterly periodical called Searching Together, formerly known as the Baptist Reformation Review. Jon is thoroughly biblical, imminently concerned with the Scriptures …. The best $10.00 you will ever spend is the yearly subscription to Searching Together (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2010/09/searching-together-edited-by-jon-zens.html).
Oh, by the way, Robert Brinsmead wrote several articles in the BRR at Zens’ behest to defend the doctrine they were systematizing, The Centrality of the Objective Gospel against a brutal onslaught by Reformed Baptists. The doctrine ended up splitting a large group of Reformed Baptist in the 80’s resulting in the formation of the Continental Baptists. According to Zens, he changed the name of the Journal to accommodate Adventist readers (The Truth About New Calvinism p. 53).
Now let’s look at the article. It begins this way:
Those who have read Grace and Truth to You for any amount of time know that this author is persuaded the Bible teaches that the eternal rewards of Christians are those rewards–and only those rewards–which are earned by Christ. It is Christ’s obedience to the will and law of the Father that obtains for God’s adopted children our inheritance. It is Christ’s perfect obedience which brings to sinners the Father’s enduring favor and guarantees for us our position as co-heirs with Christ.
Notice: Our rewards as Christians working in sanctification and our salvation as co-heirs with Christ are spoken of as being one and the same by virtue of the missing transition New Calvinist communication technique. If the two are the same as believed by New Calvinists, then their relationship to rewards would obviously be the same as well. And it boils down to this: Presbyterians, as well as Southern Baptists historically believe that salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic, so you fill in the blank. This is a sanctification by faith alone doctrine that orthodoxy has always rejected.
Burleson Continues:
Those who have faith in Christ will never appear at any future judgment of God, or be rewarded for their good behavior. Our sins were judged at the cross, and the behavior for which we are rewarded is Christ’s behavior.
Of course, this contradicts the plain sense of Scripture in many places, but is indicative of New Calvinist doctrine. The logical conclusion of his thesis throughout is that rewards in sanctification are (would be) synonymous with being rewarded with justification. The Australian Forum developed a systematic theology that supposedly enables us to bring the works of Christ to the Father in sanctification and not our own. Here is the Forum’s statement on said doctrine:
We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified (The Truth About New Calvinism p.116).
Note that justification must be maintained, and the summation of faith, and the very definition thereof, is continually bringing the works of Christ before the Father and not our own. Burleson echoes the forum in the same article:
Again: We Christians reap what we have not sown. One of the tell-tale signs of the legalist is the inability to totally rest in the knowledge that the riches of God’s favor are earned by Christ’s obedience, not his own. It is impossible to be a co-heir with Christ if the rewards of God’s people are dependent on our performance. God’s favor and our eternal rewards are dependent on Christ.
Again, notice the total synthesis of justification and sanctification (using the missing transition). Rewards in sanctification are absolutely synonymous with earning justification. We must bring Christ’s “obedience,” “behavior,” and “performance.” Ie., Christ obeys for us. Some New Calvinists even teach that Christians obey commands they are totally unaware of because it is Christ obeying through us and for us (The Truth About New Calvinism chapter 13).
And of course, the only standard for “making it our goal to please Him” is the law/Scripture. That’s why New Calvinism needs New Covenant Theology, it deals with that part in order to make things fit.
Southwood has a decision to make: they are either going to reject this doctrine or accept it. But Southwood has an edge that may be a contemporary historical precedent; they at least know what the doctrine is. They are not going to be in a position where they have to accept the idea that this is all in regard to a misunderstanding of semantics. Perhaps Larroux will even ask forgiveness for “going too deep—too fast” before the helpless sheep were “ready” for the full truth of the “scandalous gospel.” You know, because he can understand all that deep Puritan theology.
Lastly, what is the difference between this doctrine and the “wicked, lazy” servant who hid his talent in the ground, and then returned to the master only what was initially given? I wonder.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment