According to B.B. Warfield,
“These books [of Scripture] were not produced suddenly, by some miraculous act–handed down complete out of heaven, as the phrase goes; but, like all other products of time, are the ultimate effect of many processes cooperating through long periods. . . . There is the preparation of the men to write these books to be considered, a preparation physical, intellectual, spiritual, which must have attended them throughout their whole lives, and, indeed, must have attended them throughout their whole lives, and, indeed, must have had its beginning in their remote ancestors, and the effect of which was to bring the right men to the right places at the right times, with the right endowments, impulse, acquirements, to write just the books which were designed for them.”

Organic inspiration explains all kinds of peculiarities in the Old Testament. For instance, the story of Manasseh in 2 Kings 21:10-16 (which was written during the exile) focused on Manasseh’s sin to explain why Judah was in Babylon. In 2 Chronicles 33:10-17 (written after the exile) focuses on Manasseh as a model for repentance and restoration. So which is it? Is Manasseh a great sinner, or a great repenter.

A simple propositional view of scripture (that is you should read each sentence and understand it plainly right away) is ridiculous, because the Bible is not written in that way. He gave us stories, not doctrinal treatises. This doesn’t make theology bad, but we need to recognize that we all have biases and preconceptions that shade our understanding. Therefore we need to understand the cultural conditions when it was written if we are ever to approach a pure understanding of how to apply the scripture to today.

This is the complexity of scripture, that it was accomodated to a particular people, at a particular time, for a particular purpose and we are largely ignorant of most of these aspects.

The process of interpreting scripture is both easy and hard. And if you think differently, maybe you should read a good book on hermeneutics.

My opinion is that the reason that best scholars cannot master it is because they do not accept the Gospel as a child but try to understand it by their own intelligence. As humans we are not meant to understand everything that God says or does. We forget His words in Isaiah 55:8 ……. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. And the words of the Preacher in Ecclesiates 12:12 …….. And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh. It’s not about Philosophy. It’s all about Christ. See Colossians 2:1-10. We can chew our cuds about it all day, and night, but in the end it is all about Christ. One of my uncles would tell you the same as he told me ……… take your Bible and a good commentary such as Strong’s …. pray to God before you read and study your Bible and He will show you what He wants you to understand. If anyone is a believer they have a direct line to God. Use that first.

God bless ………

I don’t think it’s all about ‘religion’ either. ‘Religion’ for religion’s sake didn’t get me anywhere. I was quoting the ABC article. Yet I do think that many Christians want to dismiss other people’s spirituality just because it isn’t theirs and assume that they don’t care about deeper things. That misses the point.

God bless ………..

Bring back the creeds. Bring back art. Bring back the sacraments. Bring back contemplation. Bring back an emphasis on holiness (actions that flow from a right heart).

I am interested in the idea you present of “redeeming the culture.” You say that that does not mean returning to modernism–thank God, because the moderns had it wrong, too. Many moderns sacrificed the heart for the sake of the head. But are we now sacrificing the head to grow the heart?

Would love to hear your thoughts.