back
05 / 06
birds birds birds
Media > Reasonable Faith Podcast > How Does God Speak Through the Bible? What is the Atonement?

How Does God Speak Through the Bible? What is the Atonement?

January 19, 2014     Time: 08:27
How Does God Speak Through the Bible? What is the Atonement?

Summary

What are some proper and improper ways people try to 'hear from God' using the Bible? Also, a question about the Atonement.

Transcript How Does God Speak Through the Bible? What is the Atonement?”

 

Kevin Harris:

Dear Dr. Craig, I hear a lot about people sensing God speak to them through the Scriptures. Under what lens should we read the Scriptures? Should I approach the Scriptures subjectively through my personal experiences which makes me lean heavily on my emotional perspective of my life and personal circumstances? Or should I try to read the Scriptures through an objective lens void of my personal experience, leaving no room for personal interaction with God through his Word. History seems to have proven that people error on both sides.

Dr. Craig: I think that what he's talking about here is a false dichotomy. I think that we should not approach the Scriptures subjectively in the sense that we find the meaning of the words we read to be different from the historical-grammatical meaning that is given to us by exegesis of the passage. In that sense, I think he is right. There is an objective meaning to the text that we should try to understand and uncover, rather than looking for “What is God saying to me in this text?”

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that you are reading the Bible devotionally in a way that is void of personal experience, leaving no room for personal interaction with God. Rather, I think the subjective element enters, Kevin, when we apply that objective meaning of the text to our own personal experience. So, for example, suppose you are wrestling with a particular decision that you are not sure what to do and you read something in Scripture saying “everything you do in word or deed do to the glory of Christ,” and it suddenly hits you that you really couldn't do this thing to the glory of Christ – if you were to engage in this you wouldn't feel good about this as glorifying Jesus Christ. Well, you see, there you might say, “Well, God spoke to me as I read the Scripture this morning.” And that's all right, but what you are saying is there was an objective meaning to that text that you understood, and then you personally applied it to your circumstances to help guide you. So it is both the objective meaning but the subjective application of that text to your circumstances that I think should be part of a devotional life.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, and we see the principle there that informed that decision. You wouldn't want to read in your devotion “Judas went out and hanged himself” and then you flipped a little later and it says, “Go you therefore and do likewise.” [laughter]

Dr. Craig: Yeah, that would be making a hermeneutical mistake.

Kevin Harris: Yeah. So don't use the Bible as a talisman. I don't see the apostles, Paul, or Jesus using the Bible that way – that you are gonna kind of flip around and divine little codes and things from it. Is that what you are saying?

Dr. Craig: No! But what I am saying is you determine the objective meaning of the text. That is objective. That is not personal. But then the personal element enters in when you apply the meaning of that objective text to your own circumstances and situation. So the subjectivity is part of application, not part of interpretation.

Kevin Harris: OK. But I mean I had a friend who was considering a move to another city and he wanted some answers. He was praying about this. This is true. He went to the first part of the book of Acts and Jesus said, “Do not leave Jerusalem but stay where you are, you will become my witnesses, until my Holy Spirit has come upon you.” And he took that as an indication that he shouldn't leave town.

Dr. Craig: Yeah. But the objective meaning of the text was that the disciples were not to leave Jerusalem. And I guess the question then would be – with what justification did he apply that command to his own circumstances?

Kevin Harris: I agree with what you are saying, I just want people to get it. Flipping the Bible and using it in that way can lead to bad decisions and is not appropriate.

Dr. Craig: Right. The application needs to be legitimate. Is this a genuine instance of this principle in action, or is it a misapplication as in your friend's case?[1]

Kevin Harris: There are dozens of people who are listening to us right now who will stop doing this because of what we are saying. They'll realize that perhaps they are doing that – flipping around and trying to glean something from a text out of context that was not the original meaning, and there is not even a principle there that they could apply.

Dr. Craig: Very good point. There needs to be a principle that would be applicable. In a case like the one you gave, there isn't, is there? That is just, in a sense, misinterpreting the text to be speaking to their situation.

Kevin Harris: Reading something into it.

Dr. Craig: That is where I said the exegesis needs to be objective.

Kevin Harris: Short and sweet question:

Dr. Craig, a member of our morning study group has trouble buying into original sin. He asks, 'If the blood of Jesus redeems us from the debt of sin, to whom is it paid?' Please share your thoughts on this question.

Dr. Craig: I think that this person's friend is confused because the question about the payment of the debt of sin has nothing to do with the doctrine of original sin. Even if you don't believe in original sin, you still have the doctrine of the atonement – that Christ has paid the penalty for our sins. So you can still ask the question, “To whom it has been paid?” That doesn't have any inherent connection with the doctrine of original sin.

What I would say is have a listen to our Defenders podcasts on the Doctrine of Christ. We have two subsections of that section of the class – one on the person of Christ and then one on the work of Christ. We discussed different theories of the atonement.[2] You will see in some theories, such as the ransom theory, it is actually believed that the debt is owed to the Devil, and that Christ pays this ransom to the Devil to set us free as hostages taken by Satan. But then he, himself, could not be held. Under the satisfaction model of the atonement, the debt is owed to God, and Christ pays this unpayable, infinite debt that we could not discharge to God in our place so that his merit can then be ascribed to us. In penal theories of the atonement, it is not so much the debt of sin that is the problem as the penalty of sin, and Christ is thought to die in our place and to pay the penalty of sin that we had to pay ourselves. So I would encourage you to listen to those podcasts. We explore both the advantages of each theory as well as the disadvantages of each theory and then try to come to some adjudication as to which theory of the atonement is the best.[3]

Previous Podcast   Next Podcast