Practical Seminary

“Be hospitable to one another without complaint.”

--1 Peter 4:9

The passage that heads this blog post is significant for a number of reasons, among which is the fact that it shows a proper Christian attitude toward hosting and serving others. The reason that I want to highlight this passage today, however, is as an example of the practical aspects of training in righteousness.

Many of the New Testament commands are of an extremely practical nature. Merely examining the text of any Pauline epistle will make that much clear. These practical commands are crucially important to the life of the church and to the lives of each member of the church. If these practical commands are left unfulfilled, weepers would not be wept with (Rom. 12:15), widows would be without (1 Tim. 5:16), and wanderers would not be welcomed (1 Pet. 4:9).

On the one hand, practical ministry is appealing because it does not require theological sophistication. Showing hospitality does not require the writing or reading of a book, or earning a degree, or preaching a sermon. There are no academic prerequisites for the practicing of hospitality.

On the other hand, fulfilling the practical commands of the New Testament requires more theological sophistication, heavenly wisdom, and knowledge of God’s character than any academic degree program can give because the practical commands require us to understand God’s character and to be willing to imitate Him. These things come from the grace of the Spirit, and if we lack them no human institution can grant them.

Fulfilling these beautiful commands is a way to honor God and learn more about Him. Oftentimes it is through practical experiences (when viewed through the lens of Scripture) that we see the character of God displayed before us.

In light of that, I hope that we will all strive to fulfill the practical commands with deep, theologically-informed love for God. May He grant us greater knowledge of Himself!

--Dean of Admissions

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 7

Why Poetry Matters

Poetry—few other genres cause such consternation among biblical scholars and students alike. Poetry has been given a bad rap (no pun intended, I assure you) because of the difficult and sticky nature of interpreting poetry. Poetry, however, has been misjudged and misrepresented, and deserves to be reckoned as equally important as the rest of the Old Testament.

That claim begets another, more audacious claim: if you do not understand Old Testament poetry, you will not be able to understand large portions of the New Testament. Why, you may ask, is OT poetry so important? I will give you five reasons.

First, Old Testament poetic passages form the foundation of New Testament theological teaching. This is true as Peter states it in 1 Peter 1:10-13 and as it is observed in the fabric of the New Testament itself. A few examples will suffice. Examine the preaching from the book of Acts, and ask from where the apostles quoted to verify their message. You will find a large number of Psalms quotations, showing the essential nature of poetry for the early church. Also, the Psalms repeatedly appear elsewhere in the New Testament—Psalm 110 alone is quoted or alluded to no less than 14 times! These passages, then, form a foundation of teaching upon which the apostles heavily relied.

Second, Old Testament poetry was full of messianic prophecy. Jesus, in Luke 24:44, said that all things written of Him in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled (where the Psalms stood for a broader portion of the Old Testament). Those things He summed up like this: that He would “suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Is that how you read the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms? If not, maybe your Old Testament study has been lacking and you need to reexamine the Old Testament. In either case, the truth of the Messiah is there to be found—and thus these texts are vital to our spiritual lives.

Third, there is personal instruction to be found in the poetry of the Old Testament. It is for this reason that Paul encourages the churches at Ephesus and Colossea to teach and admonish one another with Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). The crucial functions of teaching and rebuke (exhortation) rely, in part, on the Psalms. These instructions to the churches are also linked with joyful gratitude to the Father, which is easy to imagine in light of the Psalms of praise in the canon.

Fourth, the poetic sections of Scripture encourage us. Paul said that the things written before were written for our instruction so that “through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). Immediately preceding this passage, the Scripture that he quoted was from Psalm 69:9. This displays the fact that even the Psalms, which may seem obscure and difficult to us, are in fact full of encouraging truths for the Christian soul who will take the time to plumb their depths. Paul was encouraged by the Psalms and we should imitate him in this!

Fifth and finally, Old Testament poetry gives us specific hope for the future. Psalm 110 is again a good example for us in that, when it is rightly understood, it refers to the future victory of Christ above all of His enemies (Ps. 110:1 alluded to in 1 Cor. 15:25, quoted outright in Heb. 10:12-13). Friends, this gives us a sure and solid foundation for the future. The Davidic King will reign from the throne, having had all His enemies placed beneath His feet—this is the future victory of Christ and we read about it first in Psalms, then in the New Testament. The poetry of the Old Testament, then, is the foundation of the New Testament teaching in this matter and is very important.

For these reasons and more, let us dig into the Old Testament poetry with joy and zeal for the Word of God. May God grant us perseverance as we pursue the perfect, perspicuous prophecies of our Covenant Lord, Jesus the Messiah!

--Dean of Admissions

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 6

‘Critical’ Scholarship, Continued

Having previously addressed some flaws of so-called critical scholarship, today I hope to answer the question of how we should be critical and how that relates to our study of Scripture.

How should we be critical? There are at least four areas related to biblical studies where a critical mindset is helpful and even necessary.

First, we must be self-critical. Humans qua humans have many reasons to be critical of their own conclusions and thoughts. Even secular scholars should recognize that the human mind is finite and is prone to reach fallacious conclusions. As differing human mindsets have collided, resulting in the devastating wars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it has become apparent that humans are capable of not only mental errors of calculation but of intentional and horrifying moral evil. As a race, we have good reason to question ourselves! We should always examine our own conclusions and the pathways that led us to those conclusions.

That is even more necessary in light of the teaching of the Bible. Not only does the Bible present mankind as finite and limited, but it also describes us as naturally proud and depraved (Rom. 3:10-18, Rom. 1:18-23). We are naturally children of wrath, walking after the prince of the power of the air—the devil (Eph. 2:1-3). Our pride tends to trick us into believing that we or our system of thought could not possibly be wrong. We are wrongly inflated in our view of ourselves (1 Cor. 1:18-21, and again, Rom. 1:22). On top of that, sin affects the human mind even as it affects human will and desire (Heb. 3:13). Rightly did Jesus describe sinful desires as deceitful (Mark 4:19). Because of sin, our minds misjudge the sense data that we receive (Mark 4:12, seeing, they really see but do not perceive, and hearing, they really hear but do not understand). In fact, we know that ‘natural,’ unregenerate humans cannot understand some truths because those truths are ‘spiritually appraised’ (1 Cor 2:14).

All of this should cause us to be very cautious about our mental abilities, both on the level of our individual conclusions and our overall worldview. We should be self-critical, guarding against our own tendency to be self-deceived.

Second, we should be theologically critical. The overarching theological systems that we construct should display comprehensive cohesiveness—each part should fit naturally and organically with the other parts. If one of the component conclusions of the overall system seems out of place, we have reason to be critical of that component. This does not mean we should reject that component out of hand, lest we force scriptural truths into the character of our expectations, but we should deeply examine that component. God will oftentimes surprise us with truths that initially seem out of place but ultimately bring greater cohesion to the whole system. Nevertheless, we should critically examine each component doctrine in the light of the whole system of truth.

Third, we should be logically critical. This is related to number two above in that our understanding of the Bible should be coherent, but logicality is even more basic. Our conclusions about the Bible should be able to withstand the fundamental tests of rigorous logic. We should hold biblical truths to the same standards to which we hold all systems. This is part of the error of critical scholars—they allow their own ‘critical’ presuppositions to pass less than rigorous standards, then hold the Bible to their super-rigorous (fault-finding) standards on the basis of those less-than-critically-received presuppositions. This double standard is almost a surefire recipe for fallacious conclusions.

Rather, we should hold all of our thoughts and systems to a standard of rigorous logic, allowing that there may be tension sometimes while we struggle to comprehend paradoxical or lofty truths. Nevertheless, if the Bible is true, which I believe it is, it will be able to withstand the most rigorous logical tests possible. It is the revelation of the infinite and omniscient God, after all. This does not subject divine revelation (the Bible) to a human standard (our tests of logic), but proves the Bible in regard to its own claims about its nature (Ps. 119:89/152/160, Is. 40:6-8, John 17:17, etc).

Finally, we should be biblically critical. The Bible is infallible and critiques our worldview—not the other way around. Systems of thought that present themselves as truth must pass muster with regard to logical rigor and in regard to biblical truthfulness. Paul did not deny that there were ‘plausible’ or ‘persuasive’ systems of thought other than Bible, rather, he warned against finding truth outside of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3-4). Truth is found in Jesus Christ—and any so-called truth that exists outside of Him is no truth at all.

How does this relate to our study of the Scriptures, then? When we study the Bible, it is not as if we shut off our minds. Instead, our minds should be fully engaged in the truth of God’s Word, striving to understand the relationship between various doctrines as they are presented in the Bible. We should critically, that is, rigorously, challenge our own conclusions to see if they are logically coherent and if they conform to the whole system of truth as it exists in the Bible. We should also have high standards for theological teaching, striving for the highest degree of internal consistency and the best explanation for why things are the way that they are. Finally, we should have a theologically integrated worldview, which means that biblical revelation should be the interpretive grid through which we view the world, our actions, and even the motives of our hearts (Heb. 4:12-13). If we are rightly critical in these ways, we will honor God by having a high view of His Word, a high expectation for the truthfulness of His revelation, and an even higher desire to understand and know Him better.

--Dean of Admissions

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 5

‘Critical’ Scholarship, Continued

We ended the last post with two questions. First, in what way are critical scholars wrongly critical—what is their error? Second, if critical examination of others is right, how should we be critical, and how does that relate to the study of Scripture? We will address the first question today.

How are ‘critical’ scholars wrongly critical? Those who consider themselves ‘critical’ scholars are wrongly critical in that their presuppositions are overly critical. This is evident from a number of practices that are common to critical scholars. All of these might not be present in every single critical scholar, but the following things tend to characterize critical scholarship as a whole.

Critical scholars tend automatically to doubt traditional interpretations and conclusions. In order to be convinced of a ‘traditional’ conclusion, they require evidence. In and of itself, this is a helpful approach but the problem is in the degree and amount of evidence they require and the reason that so much evidence is necessary. Specifically, they require an overwhelming abundance of evidence because they have their own (somewhat uncritically received) conclusions about what is and is not valid. For example, when dating certain Old Testament texts such as those in the Psalms, some critical scholars will date the texts very late (1^st or 2^nd century BC) because of their preconceived notions about the evolutionary development of religion. These scholars say that personal, individual views of religion did not develop until very late (like the 1^st or 2^nd century BC), therefore, the texts must be very late as well.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, this is an example of presuppositions determining what conclusions are acceptable. As I also said before, this is not necessarily wrong. It becomes wrong, however, when we do not allow that new evidence may correct our presuppositions. I would argue, in the example above, not that the Psalms must be from a late date because of the individualistic understanding of religion contained therein, but that the evolutionary conception of religion must be incorrect because it does not comport well with the data from the Psalms. A parallel situation can be imagined in the scientific realm. If a scientist composes a hypothesis that does not match the data, what should he do? He should suspect that they hypothesis is wrong or needs to be amended. The critical scholars, however, when placed in that situation, are suspicious of the data and cling to the hypothesis! Rather, they should reject the hypothesis because it does not describe the data—they should be as critical to the hypothesis of the evolution of religion as they are to the data of the Psalms.

In a similar way, critical scholars generally have an antisupernatural worldview that prevents them from reaching traditional conclusions. This naturalistic worldview is assumed to be correct and—though they might not admit it—infallible. They (less than critically) place their faith in their own worldview and judge everything critically on that basis. This is problematic, because when our worldviews cannot describe all the data, we must examine our worldviews. This is true for all people, whether Christian or non-Christian, conservative or ‘critical’. We cannot make our worldviews our god—to do so is prideful idolatry!

A final way that ‘critical’ scholars are wrongly critical is that some tend to have a bias against ancient cultures in favor of ‘modern’ cultures. This bias can be manifest in the low views that some scholars hold of the cultural practices and cognitive abilities of ancient peoples. The evolutionary concept of the development of religion can be an example of this bias if it describes ancient people like uncivilized brutes who were incapable of grasping monotheistic religion. These scholars are ‘critical’ of any evidence that could point to the contrary, regardless of how compelling that evidence might be. 

In these ways, critical scholars are wrongly critical or overly critical. In some cases, they merely need to be fair by being as critical of their own presuppositions as they are of the textual data. I believe that correcting these errors would help to bring conservative and liberal scholars together in their study and their conclusions.

Next time, we will strive to discuss how we may be rightly critical.

--Dean of Admissions

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 4

‘Critical’ Scholarship

In the field of biblical interpretation there are a wide variety of perspectives from which scholars begin. One of those perspectives is called ‘critical’ scholarship, a term that represents a very broad segment of modern biblical interpreters. Critical scholars are well-entrenched in many schools and seminaries across denominational boundaries and across countries. If we were to succinctly explain this perspective, we could say that critical scholars are highly suspect of texts and of the message of texts and that they must have plentiful evidence in order to be convinced of the veracity of those texts. When a text is studied, the scholar will disbelieve anything that cannot be proven scientifically or historically to their satisfaction.

As you might imagine, this sets a high standard for texts to achieve in order to be received as ‘true’ (where ‘true’ means historically factual, trustworthy, authoritative, and the like). In one sense this is a commendable perspective for a scholar because no person should ever accept any system of teaching without examination. What I am saying is that everyone should critically examine the ‘truths’ that others present to us to see if they are logically coherent, valid, and if they conform to reality. No one should uncritically follow every person who wishes to lead them—that would be folly.

Sadly, though, critical scholars have rejected most of the Bible’s teaching on almost every matter. The perspective of critical scholarship has eroded many people’s trust in the teaching of Scripture. The result has been a widespread departure from what is considered to be the ‘uncritical,’ traditional understanding of the Bible; many people no longer believe in miracles as recorded in Scripture, or in resurrection, or in God as He is described in the Bible.

This topic has a huge bearing on biblical studies because the Old and New Testaments describe events and persons that are not independently verifiable in the way that critical scholars desire. Many critical scholars, then, write off the Old Testament as an undesirable set of myths at best, and at worst as an embarrassment to humanity.

The question, then, is this: how can it be good to be critical when ‘critical’ scholars deny what we believe to be the most important truths imaginable?

My answer is as follows. It is good to be ‘critical,’ but only in one sense. We should examine whether or not texts are logically coherent, valid, and if they conform to reality. The problem is, we also need to be humble and to allow for the fact that we do not understand all of reality. We are not the arbiters of all truth in the universe! As human beings, we are not supreme and omniscient and we cannot prima facie rule out the existence of authoritative revelation from God just because it does not measure up to our standards.

Two questions remain. First, in what way are critical scholars wrongly critical—what is their error? Second, if critical examination of others is right, how should we be critical, and how does that relate to the study of Scripture?

We will pick up these important questions in our next post.

--Dean of Admissions

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 3

Intertextuality

Intertextuality is a tool for interpretation that helps us see legitimate, intended connections between various passages of Scripture. When a later author quotes, alludes to, or parallels an earlier author, we are meant to read the similarity of language in such a way that we grasp the similarity of topic. There are many examples of intertextuality in the Bible, but the poetic and wisdom writings of Scripture are particularly rich in this area. Specifically, the apostolic usage of these Old Testament texts demonstrates the overarching importance of biblical poetry.

One great example of this is the New Testament usage of Psalm 110. Psalm 110, in the context of the book of Psalms, plays a crucial role in intertextuality since it refers back to Genesis 14 and since it also links the biblical ideas of priesthood and kingship (cf. 2 Chron. 26:16-21). In the New Testament, it serves as one of the foundational texts for understanding who Jesus is and how He was described by God.

The number of times that Psalm 110 appears on the pages of the NT indicates how important it is. The text is quoted in Matt. 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42-43, Acts 2:34-25, and Heb. 1:13 and alluded to in Matt. 26:64, 1 Cor. 15:25, Eph. 1:20, Eph. 1:22, Col. 3:1, Heb. 1:3, Heb. 8:1, Heb. 10:12, and Heb. 12:2—14 times in the New Testament! Clearly, this Psalm was the foundation for many of the theological truths that the apostles came to understand.

If a single text from the Psalms has such amazing impact on other truths, consider the possible influence of intertextuality for the study of the Bible. There are echoes and allusions throughout the Scriptures, but without a solid awareness of the teaching of the whole Bible it impossible to recognize them. With regard to the Psalms and wisdom literature, an interpreter is at a serious personal disadvantage if he cannot recognize or understand when these texts are referenced. Yet the Psalms and wisdom literature are some of the least understood books in the Old Testament (sadly, there is quite a bit of competition for the title of ‘Least Understood Book of the Old Testament’). Many people are broadly familiarity with individual Psalms, but it is increasingly rare to find church member—or leaders—who can explain the genre and structure of the book of Psalms as a whole. Moving to other books in the ‘wisdom’ milieu, our average familiarity only decreases.

Let this be a plea, then, for studying the wisdom literature of the Old Testament! If you struggle to grasp the significance of entire books of the Bible do not turn from diligence to apathy by giving up hope of ever understanding—rather, strive ever more diligently to familiarize yourself with the whole canon. Just as Ruth, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations help us understand other parts of Scripture, we can better understand these books by understanding the surrounding context of God’s perfect revelation to us. The problem is not a lack of scriptural clarity; oftentimes it is a lack of human willingness. Delve deeply into the Word of God, then! Seek Him diligently in all the parts of His revelation. Run the way of His commandments.

--Dean of Admissions

“Remove the false way from me,

And graciously grant me Your Law.

I have chosen the faithful way;

I have placed Your ordinances before me.

I cling to your testimonies;

O Lord, do not put me to shame!

I shall run the way of your commandments,

For You will enlarge my heart.”

--Psalm 119:29-32

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 2

Authorship and Intent

The poetic books of the Old Testament present many challenges to interpretation: style, structure, literary devices, and the like. Another unique challenge of some poetic books is the question of authorship: who wrote these books? This is especially true of Job, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and some Psalms, which are attributed to no specific human author (authorship of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are debated even among conservative scholars).

Authorship matters in every field and type of literature because the author chose the specific words to use and used those words in specific ways. The author builds an argument or tells a story and by that constructive process the author determines the meaning of the text. The author’s intended meaning is the meaning of the text (see footnote 1 below). It is absurd to say that the reader chooses the meaning of a text; many others have pointed out that even authors who say that still expect to be understood a certain way by their readers.

The point is, knowing who authored a text is almost always critical if we are to understand the text. Even when we are introduced to a new author, our understanding of their text is only partial until we can grasp their perspective and place their words in the larger context of the world. Are they writing satire, or news? Are they conservative or liberal? Are they radical or traditional? We answer these questions in our mind to help us ‘peg’ where an author is coming from so that we can better understand their text.

My question, then, is this: does the lack of a known human author inhibit our interpretation of the poetic passages listed above? If we do not know who wrote Lamentations or Job, how can we understand the perspective from which they are writing? What if Job was intended to be written as a comedy, a parody on the absurdity of suffering?

My answer to that question is no, the lack of ascription to a human author does not significantly hinder our interpretation of those passages. Here is why:

First, the texts are sufficient to help us establish authorial perspective. We learn about the author of Job through how he describes the people in the account. We can establish the perspective of the author of Lamentations or Ecclesiastes by examining how they describe certain events. Even shorter texts reveal to us enough about the author to help us understand what they meant.

Second, we have clues about who the human authors of these texts were. The similarity of some of these books to other writings helps us establish links to other authors. The paleo-Hebrew fragments of Job found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, helps us know that the text is very old and may be of similar origin as the Pentateuch, since parts of both have been found in this archaic script.

Third, and most importantly, we do know who authored these texts, because all of them are within the canon of Scripture. More than anything else, this helps us establish authorial perspective because we know that the ultimate author of these texts was God, through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 2:16-21). Human authorship, though important, is not totally determinative in this case because God was using these men to write the words He intended. As we come to know God through the whole canon of the Bible, we can begin to ‘triangulate’ His perspective on events, institutions, and people. If God promises to be just, then in the book of Job we know that He will not act unjustly. If that is the case, the author of Job will be consistent with other Old Testament authors in the overall intended meaning of the text because the divine author of all these texts is the same.

This foundational belief helps us interpret all of Scripture, even the challenging poetic passages. Since we believe that these are the words of God, we can rest assured that we know the author, and as we read these texts we believe that we can come to know Him even better. As we say in our classes, ‘Authorship matters because intention matters.’

May God grant that we know Him better and better, so that in reading His Word our knowledge of Him will only grow.

--Dean of Admissions

#1--This is not to deny the fact that an author can be misunderstood or even that at times a reader may ignore the meaning of a text to read what he or she wants. Those things can happen, but the misrepresentation of the author’s meaning (whether intentional or unintentional) does not change the fact that there is a specific meaning to the author's words.

Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Part 1

Poetry, Patience, and Profit

Poetry is one of the most challenging genres of Scripture for theologians, teachers, and preachers. There are several difficulties that arise from Old Testament poetic passages but there is also one broad complication because of the nature of poetry in general. Usually, poetry cannot be fully understood through casual or quick reading, and the biblical examples of poetry are no exception.

W. D. Tucker Jr. points this out in the article “Psalms 1: Book of” in IVP’s Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings. Though I would challenge some of his other conclusions, he helpfully highlights the necessity of deliberate and attentive reading and thinking regarding poetry since the structure and message of these texts have been intertwined. Those who wish to fully understand these texts must consider all of the issues at once, being aware of how poetic texts are constructed.

Biblical poetry requires greater patience than didactic or narrative sections of Scripture because the poetic passages have particular forms than cannot be ignored. The meaning of a poetic passage can be missed if specific lines of a passage are not placed in context; the closing of a poem might radically change the meaning of the first part when the whole poem is understood together. For example, Psalm 89 seems to be a hymn of praise to God for the first 37 verses, but 14 of the last 15 verses present a radical change in the author’s attitude. What is going on here? If we ignore the form of the Psalm and the context of the surrounding Psalms, we may come to one of the (false) conclusions that the text is corrupt or that the author is blatantly contradicting himself.

However, if we notice that the downcast attitude at the end of Psalm is related to God’s apparent disregard for the Davidic covenant, then we see a structure emerging that ties the whole text together. The main body of the text highlights God’s faithfulness to David and his sons as it is described in the covenant (v. 20-29). The author, as he praised God, was focusing on the apparent inviolability of the Davidic king because of the mighty power of God. At the end of the Psalm, however, we find out that it appears that God has permanently rejected that same king! The author is struggling with what appears to be a massive contradiction in his understanding of who God is: how could God promise to bless the Davidic king when in fact the throne of the Davidic king has been cast down to the ground (v. 44)? The end of the Psalm offers no explanation for how this can be, but it does explain the form or structure of the Psalm.

The ending of the Psalm does offer some help in piecing together an explanation for how God could bless David’s kingly son and, at the same time, humiliate the king. The last verse of the Psalm ties the Psalm into the overarching structure of the book of Psalms because it praises God in a specific way. At the ending of each of the five books of the Psalms, there are similar phrases that repeat that link the whole book together (41:13, 89:52, 72:18-19, 106:48, 146-150). It is clear that the book of Psalms has repetitive structures and since form and meaning are linked, it appears that we are meant to read the Psalms in the context of the book as a whole. In light of that, Psalm 89 does not have a contradictory message, but it is one piece of the puzzle of the book of Psalms.

I would argue (as many others have) that there is an overall message or storyline in the book of Psalms. The book presents God as establishing His Law and His King, but then traces a story of kingly humiliation and distress before concluding with kingly victory and praise for God. Psalm 89 functions as one of the hinges upon which the book turns as it moves from questioning the destruction of David’s descendant to reviewing the character of God in past history (Ps. 90 and following).

The point of this example is that those who read poetry must have great patience if they wish to gather great profit from the text. Biblical poetry, like most poetry, must be read thoughtfully and intentionally, with an eye to overall structure and meaning. Reading quickly and shallowly will likely result in a shallow understanding and appreciation for God’s poetry, or worse, it might result in confusion about and disregard for the text.

Students and guests, let me encourage you to take your time as you read biblical poetry! If a passage seems out of place or irrational, focus on the form of the text, meditate on the message, or consider the context—there may be a more subtle and deep truth than a cursory reading would reveal. Read humbly, read patiently, and read slowly, and I trust that your effort will yield profitably.

--Dean of Admissions

The Importance of Presuppositions, Part 3

We have been discussing presuppositions in the previous two posts; I argued that all people use presuppositions, and that presuppositions determine what we conclude about other issues. Today I would like to discuss how we can use or misuse presuppositions.

We cannot really do away with presuppositions altogether, nor would it necessarily be ideal to do so. Given the limitations of the human mind, we cannot consider every possible reality about every issue at once—we come to conclusions about some things and then we use those conclusions as the foundations for later conclusions. Because of presuppositions we are able to focus our mental efforts on a single issue or a smaller set of issues, allowing us to focus on key points while other facts are assumed. This also shows one of the inherent (yet inescapable) dangers of presuppositions: they may not describe the world as it really is.

The example of a math problem will help us see both the useful and dangerous aspects of presuppositions. Instructions like these are often added to math problems: “Calculate the distance that a perfect cube with a mass of 1 kg will move across a surface when a force of 25N is applied. Assume air resistance is negligible.” Ignoring air resistance is helpful for the student because it allows him to focus on the role of friction in causing the cube to stop moving. On the other hand, this type of problem does not reflect the real world, so if the student tries to apply the same parameters a real life engineering problem, his conclusions will be flawed. The presupposition is helpful because it limits the area of concern—the student focuses on friction since air resistance will not be an issue—but the presupposition must be understood for what it is, namely, a false conclusion that does not reflect the real world.

That example helps us see the limitations of presuppositions, but there is one vital difference: the false presupposition is known. As we think about theology or the real world, we do not have the same luxury as the student above because we are not working in an imaginary milieu. Rather, we must operate like the student above would operate once he works in a real engineering job—all the presuppositions must be true, or false conclusions will be reached. Nevertheless, we do have the same ability to use presuppositions helpfully, just as the engineer would presuppose the equations he learned as a student were true. The engineer would not need to begin each project by determining the force of gravity on the surface of earth, but would rather use the known constant (a presupposition that is true).

We do the same thing as students of theology. If a theologian is convinced of the orthodox position regarding the Trinity, he can use that as a foundational assumption for other theological conclusions. Every time another theological question arises, he does not need to start all over with trying to determine the nature of the Godhead but he can assume the orthodox position and focus on the issue at hand. This is very helpful because otherwise considering each new theological question would require a person to consider all of theology at once—an impossible proposition.

In light of that, presuppositions are helpful instruments in the toolbox of a thinker or theologian. There are some issues that need to be addressed, though.

First, you need to be aware that you have presuppositions and that others do, too. It is not wrong or dishonorable to have presuppositions, it is just a fact of the way that we think as human beings. Though it is not wrong to have presuppositions, it is wrong to misuse presuppositions. We must be careful that we do not quickly assault the intellectual capability of others who, when confronted with the same facts, reach different conclusions. Rather, we should be patient and reasonable, talking through all the issues (which may include unrecognized presuppositions) and realizing that many things are at play when we debate others. To be a good theologian and thinker, it is necessary to be aware of how presuppositions function in noetic processes. Everyone uses presuppositions—not everyone is aware of how they use them.

Second, you must be aware of what your presuppositions are—what have you concluded about God, the Bible, and the world around us? Another way of asking this question is to ask, “What is your worldview?” Your presuppositions function as a lens through which you interpret other facts. Knowing what you believe about foundational issues helps you understand what you believe about less important issues and why you believe those things. Foundational conclusions answer questions like these: Who is God, that is, what is God’s character like? Where did the world come from? What is the common nature of human beings? Indubitably, what you believe about these things determines what you do or do not believe about other issues as well. If you believe that there is no god and that life arose from evolution, it will determine what you believe about Jesus. Presuppositions influence the conclusions we make at every level of our thinking. I do not believe that is an overstatement.

Finally, you need to examine your presuppositions. You have presuppositions and they are foundational to your processes as a thinker, but that does not mean that they are all truthful. Just because we come to conclusions about certain things does not mean that we always come to conclusions that reflect reality. Our mental processes are not infallible—in fact, they are far from it. It is easy to be deceived, or to misinterpret data, or to simply fall short of a true understanding of a matter. This means that our presuppositions are also not infallible and will sometimes need to be corrected. This is not an easy process, since we have arrived at many of our presuppositions informally and without recognizing it. We need to examine ourselves, then, and constantly ask if we believe what the Bible teaches at every level. It is easy to come to false conclusions and relatively difficult to understand the truth. Examine your presuppositions, then, and measure them against the perfect standards of truth, which is the Word of God.

May God grant that we are delivered from false presuppositions, so that we may serve Him in truth and faithfulness all our days!

--Dean of Admissions