This is the second part of a two-part series on “Discerning the Word of God, An Exposition and Application of 1 Kings 13.” You can read the first part here

D. Scott Meadows

Given the limitations of this presentation, we can only quickly survey some modern challenges to the orthodox Reformed view of Cessationism and the sufficiency of Scripture—some even coming from the Reformed community. The order of my concerns is like a series of concentric circles from the outermost rings to the center, where the last ones are the most likely ways in which we ourselves have sinned against the biblical principles we have seen.

Postmodern Language Skepticism

While postmodernism is probably impossible to define to everyone’s satisfaction, one of its conspicuous traits is a skepticism regarding any objective, fixed meaning from language texts of any kind, and this applies to the postmodern view of Scripture. Alphabetical characters and the words and sentences they form are merely the use of symbols that may mean different things to those who write them and those who read them. There is no single “correct” interpretation to any given text. Each reader must experience the text for himself, and decide for himself what it means to him.

We hear this philosophy informally “in the street” by people who have never heard of postmodernism when they deny that the Bible can be objectively and universally interpreted. Their motto seems to be, “That’s your interpretation,” with the suggestion that your interpretation is only valid for you.

Continue reading Modern Examples of Ignoring, Forgetting, Spurning, and Mistaking Counterfeits for God’s Authentic Word in Scripture →

D. Scott Meadows

An Exposition and Application of 1 Kings 13

INTRODUCTION

Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer wrote a book about God entitled, He Is There and He Is Not Silent.¹ In a terse way, this expresses two of the most basic convictions of the whole Christian religion. God exists and God speaks.

Theologians argue whether God’s existence can be proven without assuming it in the first place, with two conspicuous perspectives. Presuppositionalism championed by scholars like Cornelius Van Til argues that God’s existence is patently obvious to all and that men only become atheists by a flight from reason and experience. Evidentialism represented, for example by John Gerstner, holds that without presuppositions, the existence of God may be proven by logical arguments to the satisfaction of any fair-minded and serious inquirer. Both are serious positions held by godly Reformed men and worthy of careful consideration. An important biblical passage bearing on the issue is Romans 1.18-23,

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.²

This text states that God’s wrath against sinners is “revealed,” from the Greek word apokalupto, translated the same way throughout the NT.³ It is a compound with the literal sense of “off-cover,” and hence to uncover, lay open what has been veiled, make bare, and by extension, to make known or manifest, to disclose what was before unknown, and bring to light. In a theological sense, it has the special meaning of a divine disclosure of certain supernatural secrets.⁴ Romans 8.19 and 16.25 furnish important biblical examples of this sense.

Continue reading Discerning the Word of God →