http://www.gospeltranslations.org/w/index.php?title=Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ&action=history Revision history for this page on the wiki en MediaWiki 1.16alpha Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:37:22 GMT http://www.gospeltranslations.org/w/index.php?title=Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ&diff=7245&oldid=prev <p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 16:25, 10 July 2008</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>{{<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">MasterHeader|author=Dr. R.C. Sproul|partnerurl=http://www.ligonier.org|partner=Ligonier Ministries |other=|mediatype=article|lang=English|editor=n/a|translator= n/a|levels=0|reviewed=Not Reviewed|newtitle=Paul, a Servant of Jesus Christ|series=Right Now Counts Forever |topic=Biblical Studies |subtopic=Biblical Figures |month=July |day= |year=2006</del>}}When I look back over forty years of teaching, I sometimes think I must be the most inarticulate writer and speaker in the history of the world. I wonder about that when I read interpretations of my teaching from the pens of other people, particularly from those who are hostile to what I declare. Frequently the distortions are so great that I cannot recognize my own position in the criticism. It may be helpful in trying to interpret mine or any other teacher’s declarations by looking at their geographical backgrounds. I grew up in the city of Pittsburgh, in a blue-collar environment, yet in a white-collar home, and so one can see that the perspective I have on life will differ from those people who grew up in southern California or Alabama. Nevertheless, to interpret my teachings simply on the basis of my Pittsburgh background would be utter nonsense. My perspective is not identical to every person who ever grew up in Pittsburgh. In like manner, one could examine my educational background and look at the viewpoints of my main mentors. As a student of G.C. Berkouwer in the Netherlands, one can certainly see dimensions of influence on my thought from that theologian. But to identify my general approach in theology to Berkouwer’s would be to distort my own views. It would even be incorrect to identify my theology totally with that of my main mentor, the late John H. Gerstner. The reason for this is that I have had many mentors in addition to those I’ve already mentioned, and also, through my own studies of the Bible and of church history, I have developed some positions that one cannot find in these other people. Still, it may be valuable from time to time to examine the background and education of theologians to get a deeper understanding of their teachings. Such investigation indeed may be beneficial while at the same time perilous. &nbsp;</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>{{<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">info</ins>}}When I look back over forty years of teaching, I sometimes think I must be the most inarticulate writer and speaker in the history of the world. I wonder about that when I read interpretations of my teaching from the pens of other people, particularly from those who are hostile to what I declare. Frequently the distortions are so great that I cannot recognize my own position in the criticism. It may be helpful in trying to interpret mine or any other teacher’s declarations by looking at their geographical backgrounds. I grew up in the city of Pittsburgh, in a blue-collar environment, yet in a white-collar home, and so one can see that the perspective I have on life will differ from those people who grew up in southern California or Alabama. Nevertheless, to interpret my teachings simply on the basis of my Pittsburgh background would be utter nonsense. My perspective is not identical to every person who ever grew up in Pittsburgh. In like manner, one could examine my educational background and look at the viewpoints of my main mentors. As a student of G.C. Berkouwer in the Netherlands, one can certainly see dimensions of influence on my thought from that theologian. But to identify my general approach in theology to Berkouwer’s would be to distort my own views. It would even be incorrect to identify my theology totally with that of my main mentor, the late John H. Gerstner. The reason for this is that I have had many mentors in addition to those I’ve already mentioned, and also, through my own studies of the Bible and of church history, I have developed some positions that one cannot find in these other people. Still, it may be valuable from time to time to examine the background and education of theologians to get a deeper understanding of their teachings. Such investigation indeed may be beneficial while at the same time perilous. &nbsp;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>I mentioned my own experience simply to call attention to a much greater issue, one that far transcends how people interpret or misinterpret me, namely, how we go about seeking a correct understanding of the biblical writers in general and for the benefit of this issue of ''Tabletalk'', the teaching of the apostle Paul in particular. In the New Testament, Paul himself indicates in one of his defenses that he was from Tarsus, which he describes as no mean city. Tarsus was a city that was cosmopolitan in antiquity, and, as a melting pot, it became a place where the exchange of many diverse ideas commonly took place. That Paul was exposed to views that arose beyond the borders of his own home town is something we can take virtually for granted. Paul goes on to cite his background as a student at the feet of the renowned rabbi Gamaliel. It is without doubt that Paul’s thinking was shaped to some degree by his great mentor Gamaliel. We know that Paul was immersed academically in the content of the Old Testament as well as in the writings of the rabbinic scholars of his day. But to interpret Paul solely on the grounds of the teachings of the rabbinic scholars of antiquity would be to negate critical factors of influence in the development of Paul’s thought. &nbsp;</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>I mentioned my own experience simply to call attention to a much greater issue, one that far transcends how people interpret or misinterpret me, namely, how we go about seeking a correct understanding of the biblical writers in general and for the benefit of this issue of ''Tabletalk'', the teaching of the apostle Paul in particular. In the New Testament, Paul himself indicates in one of his defenses that he was from Tarsus, which he describes as no mean city. Tarsus was a city that was cosmopolitan in antiquity, and, as a melting pot, it became a place where the exchange of many diverse ideas commonly took place. That Paul was exposed to views that arose beyond the borders of his own home town is something we can take virtually for granted. Paul goes on to cite his background as a student at the feet of the renowned rabbi Gamaliel. It is without doubt that Paul’s thinking was shaped to some degree by his great mentor Gamaliel. We know that Paul was immersed academically in the content of the Old Testament as well as in the writings of the rabbinic scholars of his day. But to interpret Paul solely on the grounds of the teachings of the rabbinic scholars of antiquity would be to negate critical factors of influence in the development of Paul’s thought. &nbsp;</div></td></tr> <!-- diff generator: internal 2026-04-18 12:37:22 --> </table> Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:25:09 GMT Bhkauflin http://www.gospeltranslations.org/wiki/Talk:Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ http://www.gospeltranslations.org/w/index.php?title=Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ&diff=7244&oldid=prev <p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 15:44, 18 June 2008</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>{{MasterHeader|author=Dr. R.C. Sproul|partnerurl=http://www.ligonier.org|partner=Ligonier Ministries<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">|date=July 2006</del>|other=<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">|categorytopic=Biblical Studies</del>|mediatype=article|lang=English|editor=n/a|translator= n/a|levels=0|reviewed=Not Reviewed|newtitle=Paul, a Servant of Jesus Christ}}<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">&amp;nbsp;</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>{{MasterHeader|author=Dr. R.C. Sproul|partnerurl=http://www.ligonier.org|partner=Ligonier Ministries |other=|mediatype=article|lang=English|editor=n/a|translator= n/a|levels=0|reviewed=Not Reviewed|newtitle=Paul, a Servant of Jesus Christ<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">|series=Right Now Counts Forever |topic=Biblical Studies |subtopic=Biblical Figures |month=July |day= |year=2006</ins>}}<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">When I look back over forty years of teaching, I sometimes think I must be the most inarticulate writer and speaker in the history of the world. I wonder about that when I read interpretations of my teaching from the pens of other people, particularly from those who are hostile to what I declare. Frequently the distortions are so great that I cannot recognize my own position in the criticism. It may be helpful in trying to interpret mine or any other teacher’s declarations by looking at their geographical backgrounds. I grew up in the city of Pittsburgh, in a blue-collar environment, yet in a white-collar home, and so one can see that the perspective I have on life will differ from those people who grew up in southern California or Alabama. Nevertheless, to interpret my teachings simply on the basis of my Pittsburgh background would be utter nonsense. My perspective is not identical to every person who ever grew up in Pittsburgh. In like manner, one could examine my educational background and look at the viewpoints of my main mentors. As a student of G.C. Berkouwer in the Netherlands, one can certainly see dimensions of influence on my thought from that theologian. But to identify my general approach in theology to Berkouwer’s would be to distort my own views. It would even be incorrect to identify my theology totally with that of my main mentor, the late John H. Gerstner. The reason for this is that I have had many mentors in addition to those I’ve already mentioned, and also, through my own studies of the Bible and of church history, I have developed some positions that one cannot find in these other people. Still, it may be valuable from time to time to examine the background and education of theologians to get a deeper understanding of their teachings. Such investigation indeed may be beneficial while at the same time perilous. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">When </del>I <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">look back over forty years </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">teaching, I sometimes think I must be </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">most inarticulate writer </del>and <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">speaker in </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">history </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">world. I wonder about that when I read interpretations of my </del>teaching <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">from the pens </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">other people, particularly from those who are hostile to what I declare. Frequently </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">distortions are so great that I cannot recognize my own position </del>in the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">criticism. It may be helpful </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">trying to interpret mine or any other teacher’s declarations by looking at their geographical backgrounds</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">I grew up </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the city of Pittsburgh</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">in </del>a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">blue-collar environment</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">yet in </del>a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">white-collar home, and so one can see that </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">perspective I have on life will differ from those people who grew up in southern California or Alabama</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Nevertheless, </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpret my teachings simply on </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">basis </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">my Pittsburgh background would be utter nonsense</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">My perspective is not identical </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">every person who ever grew up in Pittsburgh. In like manner, one could examine my educational </del>background <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and look </del>at the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">viewpoints </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">my main mentors. As a student of G.C. Berkouwer in </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Netherlands, one can certainly see dimensions of influence on my thought from that theologian. But to identify my general approach in theology to Berkouwer’s would be to distort my own views</del>. It <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">would even be incorrect </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">identify my theology totally with that of my main </del>mentor<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, the late John H</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Gerstner. The reason for this is </del>that <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">I have had many mentors </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">addition to those I’ve already mentioned, and also, through my own studies </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Bible and </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">church history, I have developed some positions that one cannot find in these other people</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Still, it may be valuable from time </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">time to examine </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">background and education </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">theologians to get a deeper understanding of their </del>teachings<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Such investigation indeed may </del>be <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">beneficial while at </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">same time perilous</del>. &nbsp;</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>I <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">mentioned my own experience simply to call attention to a much greater issue, one that far transcends how people interpret or misinterpret me, namely, how we go about seeking a correct understanding </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">biblical writers in general </ins>and <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">for </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">benefit </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">this issue of ''Tabletalk'', </ins>the teaching of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">apostle Paul </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">particular. In </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">New Testament, Paul himself indicates </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">one of his defenses that he was from Tarsus, which he describes as no mean city</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Tarsus was a city that was cosmopolitan </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">antiquity</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and, as </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">melting pot</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">it became </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">place where </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">exchange of many diverse ideas commonly took place</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">That Paul was exposed </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">views that arose beyond </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">borders </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">his own home town is something we can take virtually for granted</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Paul goes on </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">cite his </ins>background <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">as a student </ins>at the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">feet </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">renowned rabbi Gamaliel</ins>. It <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">is without doubt that Paul’s thinking was shaped </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">some degree by his great </ins>mentor <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Gamaliel</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">We know </ins>that <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Paul was immersed academically </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the content </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Old Testament as well as in the writings </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the rabbinic scholars of his day</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">But </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpret Paul solely on </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">grounds </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the </ins>teachings <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">of the rabbinic scholars of antiquity would </ins>be <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to negate critical factors of influence in </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">development of Paul’s thought</ins>. &nbsp;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">I mentioned my own experience simply to call attention to a much greater issue</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">one </del>that <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">far transcends how people interpret </del>or <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">misinterpret me, namely, how we go about seeking a correct understanding </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">biblical writers </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">general </del>and <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">for </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">benefit </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">this issue </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">''Tabletalk''</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the teaching </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">apostle Paul in </del>particular. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In the New Testament</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Paul himself indicates in </del>one of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">his defenses that he was from Tarsus, which he describes </del>as <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">no mean city. Tarsus was a city that was cosmopolitan </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">antiquity, and, </del>as <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">a melting pot</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">it became a place where </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">exchange </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">many diverse ideas commonly took place</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">That Paul was exposed to views </del>that <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">arose beyond </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">borders of his </del>own <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">home town is something </del>we <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">can take virtually for granted. Paul goes on </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">cite his background as a student at the feet </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the renowned rabbi Gamaliel. It </del>is <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">without doubt that Paul’s thinking was shaped </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">some degree by his great mentor Gamaliel. We know that Paul was immersed academically in </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">content of the Old Testament as well as </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the writings of the rabbinic scholars of his day</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">But </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpret Paul solely </del>on the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">grounds </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">teachings </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">rabbinic scholars </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">antiquity would </del>be <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to negate critical factors </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">influence </del>in the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">development </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Paul’s thought</del>.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In our day</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">two very significant movements have occurred in biblical scholarship </ins>that <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">have brought with it deleterious effects on biblical doctrine. The first such development is what is called “atomistic” exegesis </ins>or <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpretation. This approach to the Scriptures sees the individual books and individual passages </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">those books, </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">“atom bits of teaching,” as ideas that must be interpreted only </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">their immediate contexts </ins>and <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">not in </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">context </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the whole scope </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Scripture</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">or even </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">whole scope of a </ins>particular <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">writer’s expressions</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">For example</ins>, one <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">scholar may say he will interpret Paul’s teaching </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">justification </ins>as <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">set forth </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Ephesians without any consideration of what Paul said of the doctrine in Galatians or in Romans. Each passage is treated </ins>as <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">an atom of insight</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and whether that atom coheres with bits of teaching found elsewhere in the author’s writing or in </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">whole </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Scripture is irrelevant</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The Reformation rule of interpreting the Bible — </ins>that the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Bible is its </ins>own <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpreter and that </ins>we <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">are not </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">set one portion </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Scripture against another — </ins>is <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">thrown </ins>to the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">winds </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">this approach</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Indeed, even among professing evangelicals, </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">insist </ins>on <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">coherency in </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Word </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">God is to offend them. They have bought into </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">notion </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">relativism, that even the Bible, as </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">inspired Word </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">God, can at times </ins>be <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">contradictory and incoherent, because coherency and consistency are virtues that theologians impose upon our doctrine </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">God and are not to be found </ins>in the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Scriptures themselves. This approach to biblical interpretation and to the doctrine </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">God is utterly fatal</ins>. &nbsp;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In our day, two very significant movements have occurred in biblical scholarship that have brought with it deleterious effects on biblical doctrine. The first such development is what is called “atomistic” exegesis or interpretation. This approach to the Scriptures sees the individual books and individual passages of those books, the “atom bits of teaching,” as ideas that must be interpreted only in their immediate contexts and not in the context of the whole scope of Scripture, or even of the whole scope of a particular writer’s expressions. For example, one scholar may say he will interpret Paul’s teaching of justification as set forth in Ephesians without any consideration of what Paul said of the doctrine in Galatians or in Romans. Each passage is treated as an atom of insight, and whether that atom coheres with bits of teaching found elsewhere in the author’s writing or in the whole of Scripture is irrelevant. The Reformation rule of interpreting the Bible — that the Bible is its own interpreter and that we are not to set one portion of Scripture against another — is thrown to the winds in this approach. Indeed, even among professing evangelicals, to insist on coherency in the Word of God is to offend them. They have bought into the notion of relativism, that even the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, can at times be contradictory and incoherent, because coherency and consistency are virtues that theologians impose upon our doctrine of God and are not to be found in the Scriptures themselves. This approach to biblical interpretation and to the doctrine of God is utterly fatal.</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>But beyond the epidemic influence of atomistic exegesis is the current vogue of interpreting New Testament writers in terms of rabbinic Judaism, particularly with respect to Paul. Since Paul himself was an expert in rabbinic thought, the conclusion is reached (by a gratuitous leap) that all Paul’s teaching can be made clear by looking at the background of rabbinic teaching that formed Paul’s perspective. Indeed, even the so-called “new perspective” on Paul involves an attempt to reconstruct the old perspective that Paul himself brought to the doctrines of the New Testament, which perspective was basically shaped by rabbinic views. &nbsp;</div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160;</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>But beyond the epidemic influence of atomistic exegesis is the current vogue of interpreting New Testament writers in terms of rabbinic Judaism, particularly with respect to Paul. Since Paul himself was an expert in rabbinic thought, the conclusion is reached (by a gratuitous leap) that all Paul’s teaching can be made clear by looking at the background of rabbinic teaching that formed Paul’s perspective. Indeed, even the so-called “new perspective” on Paul involves an attempt to reconstruct the old perspective that Paul himself brought to the doctrines of the New Testament, which perspective was basically shaped by rabbinic views.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>This approach to Pauline interpretation involves two crucial errors. The first is that it assumes no room for the supreme influence on Paul of his right theological expressions, namely, the superintendence of the Holy Ghost, while the apostle, acting as an agent of revelation, set forth his doctrine. Equally important is the ignoring of the radical transformation that occurred to Paul by his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul himself claims Jesus as the supreme influence in shaping his thought, not Gamaliel or the rabbinic scholars of antiquity. We notice that when Paul writes his letters, he does not identify himself by saying, “Paul, a bond servant or slave of Gamaliel.” No, he says, “Paul, a bond slave of Jesus Christ.” It is the teaching of Christ, who revealed His perspective and His own mind to Paul, that stands as the supreme foundation for Pauline theology. To ignore that is to assume no real conversion, no real changing of Paul’s mind, no real transformation of Paul’s thinking. To gain insight into Paul, it may help to study his background, but when we look at that background as a control for Paul’s expression, we fall into the trap of the worst kind of deconstruction.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>This approach to Pauline interpretation involves two crucial errors. The first is that it assumes no room for the supreme influence on Paul of his right theological expressions, namely, the superintendence of the Holy Ghost, while the apostle, acting as an agent of revelation, set forth his doctrine. Equally important is the ignoring of the radical transformation that occurred to Paul by his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul himself claims Jesus as the supreme influence in shaping his thought, not Gamaliel or the rabbinic scholars of antiquity. We notice that when Paul writes his letters, he does not identify himself by saying, “Paul, a bond servant or slave of Gamaliel.” No, he says, “Paul, a bond slave of Jesus Christ.” It is the teaching of Christ, who revealed His perspective and His own mind to Paul, that stands as the supreme foundation for Pauline theology. To ignore that is to assume no real conversion, no real changing of Paul’s mind, no real transformation of Paul’s thinking. To gain insight into Paul, it may help to study his background, but when we look at that background as a control for Paul’s expression, we fall into the trap of the worst kind of deconstruction.</div></td></tr> <!-- diff generator: internal 2026-04-18 12:37:22 --> </table> Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:44:31 GMT Bhkauflin http://www.gospeltranslations.org/wiki/Talk:Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ http://www.gospeltranslations.org/w/index.php?title=Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ&diff=7243&oldid=prev <p></p> <table style="background-color: white; color:black;"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr valign='top'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 18:21, 7 June 2008</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>-</td><td style="background: #ffa; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">And </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">last </del>one<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">!</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">{{MasterHeader|author=Dr. R.C. Sproul|partnerurl=http://www.ligonier.org|partner=Ligonier Ministries|date=July 2006|other=|categorytopic=Biblical Studies|mediatype=article|lang=English|editor=n/a|translator= n/a|levels=0|reviewed=Not Reviewed|newtitle=Paul, a Servant of Jesus Christ}}&amp;nbsp;</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">When I look back over forty years of teaching, I sometimes think I must be </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">most inarticulate writer and speaker in the history of the world. I wonder about that when I read interpretations of my teaching from the pens of other people, particularly from those who are hostile to what I declare. Frequently the distortions are so great that I cannot recognize my own position in the criticism. It may be helpful in trying to interpret mine or any other teacher’s declarations by looking at their geographical backgrounds. I grew up in the city of Pittsburgh, in a blue-collar environment, yet in a white-collar home, and so </ins>one <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">can see that the perspective I have on life will differ from those people who grew up in southern California or Alabama. Nevertheless, to interpret my teachings simply on the basis of my Pittsburgh background would be utter nonsense. My perspective is not identical to every person who ever grew up in Pittsburgh. In like manner, one could examine my educational background and look at the viewpoints of my main mentors. As a student of G.C. Berkouwer in the Netherlands, one can certainly see dimensions of influence on my thought from that theologian. But to identify my general approach in theology to Berkouwer’s would be to distort my own views. It would even be incorrect to identify my theology totally with that of my main mentor, the late John H. Gerstner. The reason for this is that I have had many mentors in addition to those I’ve already mentioned, and also, through my own studies of the Bible and of church history, I have developed some positions that one cannot find in these other people. Still, it may be valuable from time to time to examine the background and education of theologians to get a deeper understanding of their teachings. Such investigation indeed may be beneficial while at the same time perilous. </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">I mentioned my own experience simply to call attention to a much greater issue, one that far transcends how people interpret or misinterpret me, namely, how we go about seeking a correct understanding of the biblical writers in general and for the benefit of this issue of ''Tabletalk'', the teaching of the apostle Paul in particular. In the New Testament, Paul himself indicates in one of his defenses that he was from Tarsus, which he describes as no mean city. Tarsus was a city that was cosmopolitan in antiquity, and, as a melting pot, it became a place where the exchange of many diverse ideas commonly took place. That Paul was exposed to views that arose beyond the borders of his own home town is something we can take virtually for granted. Paul goes on to cite his background as a student at the feet of the renowned rabbi Gamaliel. It is without doubt that Paul’s thinking was shaped to some degree by his great mentor Gamaliel. We know that Paul was immersed academically in the content of the Old Testament as well as in the writings of the rabbinic scholars of his day. But to interpret Paul solely on the grounds of the teachings of the rabbinic scholars of antiquity would be to negate critical factors of influence in the development of Paul’s thought.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In our day, two very significant movements have occurred in biblical scholarship that have brought with it deleterious effects on biblical doctrine. The first such development is what is called “atomistic” exegesis or interpretation. This approach to the Scriptures sees the individual books and individual passages of those books, the “atom bits of teaching,” as ideas that must be interpreted only in their immediate contexts and not in the context of the whole scope of Scripture, or even of the whole scope of a particular writer’s expressions. For example, one scholar may say he will interpret Paul’s teaching of justification as set forth in Ephesians without any consideration of what Paul said of the doctrine in Galatians or in Romans. Each passage is treated as an atom of insight, and whether that atom coheres with bits of teaching found elsewhere in the author’s writing or in the whole of Scripture is irrelevant. The Reformation rule of interpreting the Bible — that the Bible is its own interpreter and that we are not to set one portion of Scripture against another — is thrown to the winds in this approach. Indeed, even among professing evangelicals, to insist on coherency in the Word of God is to offend them. They have bought into the notion of relativism, that even the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, can at times be contradictory and incoherent, because coherency and consistency are virtues that theologians impose upon our doctrine of God and are not to be found in the Scriptures themselves. This approach to biblical interpretation and to the doctrine of God is utterly fatal.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">But beyond the epidemic influence of atomistic exegesis is the current vogue of interpreting New Testament writers in terms of rabbinic Judaism, particularly with respect to Paul. Since Paul himself was an expert in rabbinic thought, the conclusion is reached (by a gratuitous leap) that all Paul’s teaching can be made clear by looking at the background of rabbinic teaching that formed Paul’s perspective. Indeed, even the so-called “new perspective” on Paul involves an attempt to reconstruct the old perspective that Paul himself brought to the doctrines of the New Testament, which perspective was basically shaped by rabbinic views.</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>&#160;</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">This approach to Pauline interpretation involves two crucial errors. The first is that it assumes no room for the supreme influence on Paul of his right theological expressions, namely, the superintendence of the Holy Ghost, while the apostle, acting as an agent of revelation, set forth his doctrine. Equally important is the ignoring of the radical transformation that occurred to Paul by his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul himself claims Jesus as the supreme influence in shaping his thought, not Gamaliel or the rabbinic scholars of antiquity. We notice that when Paul writes his letters, he does not identify himself by saying, “Paul, a bond servant or slave of Gamaliel.” No, he says, “Paul, a bond slave of Jesus Christ.” It is the teaching of Christ, who revealed His perspective and His own mind to Paul, that stands as the supreme foundation for Pauline theology. To ignore that is to assume no real conversion, no real changing of Paul’s mind, no real transformation of Paul’s thinking. To gain insight into Paul, it may help to study his background, but when we look at that background as a control for Paul’s expression, we fall into the trap of the worst kind of deconstruction.</ins></div></td></tr> <!-- diff generator: internal 2026-04-18 12:37:22 --> </table> Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:21:45 GMT Lydiaclaire http://www.gospeltranslations.org/wiki/Talk:Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ http://www.gospeltranslations.org/w/index.php?title=Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ&diff=7242&oldid=prev <p>New page: And the last one!</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>And the last one!</div> Sat, 24 May 2008 00:59:11 GMT CharisGalbraith http://www.gospeltranslations.org/wiki/Talk:Paul,_a_Servant_of_Jesus_Christ