Jim Elliff | Knowable Word

You Cannot Trust Christ Without Trusting the Scripture

February 1, 2023 By Peter Krol

Note: I’m not sure why the original post no longer appears on the CCW site, but you can still read it via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

In this post, Jim Elliff makes a profound point: It is not possible to know or trust Christ while denying the authority or reliability of the Bible. Elliff tells of a learned man who claimed to see a vision of Jesus, while doubting that he could trust what the Bible says about him. But such deception is one of Satan’s tactics, and the fruit of such deception is the very reason for which Jesus pronounced a curse on the religious leaders of his day.

Elliff remarks:

I have many friends who struggle with the Scriptures. I’m really not unsympathetic to their viewpoint. Believing in the Scriptures as true and reliable and inerrant has many detractors. Voices of disbelief come from all sides. But when you see the glory of Christ in them, something changes in the reader.

Check it out!

Let the Imbalances of Scripture Speak for Themselves

June 9, 2021 By Peter Krol

Jim Elliff makes a terrific point in a very brief post. He encourages us to allow each passage of Scripture to speak for itself, each author for himself. Systematic theology is a wonderful and necessary discipline for the Christian faith, but perhaps we have been trained by it to over-harmonize texts and flatten the sharp edges of the scriptures.

Here is Elliff:

For instance, a man may read that he is to exert diligence in pursuing truths from God, but, on the other side his mind flies to passages that say God alone grants that understanding and unless God opens the heart, he is helpless to obtain any benefit from his diligence. So, the mind patches together a way both things are really one thing. But now you’ve ripped something away that the author intended to emphasize. He makes one point, but he purposely did not make the other point. He wasn’t writing a systematic theology, but was driving a truth home.
In some odd cases, the meaning of the first statement is turned on its head and all the potency is excised from the text by our propensity to blend all seemingly contrary thoughts together. As we read, we say, “Christ does not really mean we are to give up our possessions because in this place He says that some believers are wealthy.” So as we read we are denying the statement before we let it say anything to us. And, without intending to do so, we are telling ourselves and perhaps others that it would have been better if Jesus would have said something much more benign.

I think Elliff is exactly right. Remember, the Bible was not delivered to humanity on a fiery chariot from heaven, complete in 66 parts. Each book of the Bible was written, one at a time, from a particular author to a particular audience. Each of those books had real meaning in the minds of author and audience, even without a center column for cross-references. (And I’m not speaking about allusions to earlier texts that would have been clear to the original audience; I’m speaking only of parallel passages or texts that happen to cover similar topics or themes.)

Especially when it comes to application, we ought to receive the message of any given text with the full force intended by that author—even if that force feels out of balance with another part of Scripture. Why not just allow the perceived imbalance to simmer a little longer and spur us in a certain direction? We can always take more time later to examine other texts that speak complementary messages, that we may be prodded in a different direction.

Elliff’s brief piece is worthy of your time. Check it out!

Context Matters: To All Who Received Him

November 25, 2020 By Peter Krol

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
John 1:12

How much of our evangelistic effort roots itself in this verse, asking people to “receive Christ,” inviting him into their hearts? Is that what John meant when he wrote these words?

Jim Elliff argues that no, John did not have such a practice in mind. And Elliff shows us from the verse’s context a better understanding. Here is one place it takes him:

Our main work is not so much to explain the sinner’s response to Christ (that is important mainly for pretending believers), but to labor on the gospel itself. When we are brutally honest with people about their sin, and lucid about the only answer being in Christ, His death and resurrection, then we have preached the gospel. We have done what is necessary to cooperate with the Spirit in their conversion. We will actually work against the Spirit when we get caught up in a formulaic approach to the gospel as opposed to a content-filled proclamation. Get the message right and depend on God to convict and convert. You will know someone is saved, not when they “pray the prayer,” but when they repent and believe in Christ, with the evidence of truly following Him. Ask, “Do you believe?”

Elliff observes the text closely, in its context, and he argues, from John’s larger message, a better way to think about evangelism. This is terrific.

Check it out!

Embrace the Tension

December 19, 2018 By Peter Krol

Jim Elliff makes an important point. To read Scripture rightly, we must be willing to allow each author, in each text, to make the point he wants to make. We must not be quick to harmonize its teaching with the rest of the Bible, lest we dilute or overturn the point at hand.

Elliff writes:

For instance, a man may read that he is to exert diligence in pursuing truths from God, but, on the other side his mind flies to passages that say God alone grants that understanding and unless God opens the heart, he is helpless to obtain any benefit from his diligence. So, the mind patches together a way both things are really one thing. But now you’ve ripped something away that the author intended to emphasize. He makes one point, but he purposely did not make the other point. He wasn’t writing a systematic theology, but was driving a truth home.

In some odd cases, the meaning of the first statement is turned on its head and all the potency is excised from the text by our propensity to blend all seemingly contrary thoughts together. As we read, we say, “Christ does not really mean we are to give up our possessions because in this place He says that some believers are wealthy.” So as we read we are denying the statement before we let it say anything to us. And, without intending to do so, we are telling ourselves and perhaps others that it would have been better if Jesus would have said something much more benign.

This does not mean that harmonizing, or creating a systematic theology is wrong; on the contrary, it is critical that we do this! But not at the expense of what the Holy Spirit aims to teach in a particular passage.

For further explanation from Elliff, check it out!

HT: Elizabeth Hankins

Read the Bible

January 15, 2014 By Peter Krol

A few weeks ago, I linked to my post at the Gospel Coalition with some advice to readers: Read the Bible. Along the same lines, this terrific article from Jim Elliff recommends heavy saturation in the Scripture:

No plan for Bible reading is a complete waste of time, obviously, but I’ve now come to believe there is a better way of thinking about Bible reading. I’m recommending immersion or saturation in one or two books of the Bible over several months as my preferred method. Frankly, I have never known Bible reading to be so transformative and interesting as with this method, both for me and for many friends who have tried it at my suggestion.

Elliff doesn’t necessarily suggest reading the entire Bible quickly (though he mentions the possibility), but he proposes immersion in a large chunk of text. Such immersion allows us to pickle in the very words of God and avoid three things that distract us from the text:

Devotionalism
Good books
Commentaries and study Bibles

I heartily concur! Devotion to God is important. Good books sharpen our thinking. Commentaries and study Bibles hone our understanding and help provide necessary background.

But too often, we allow such things to replace the Bible altogether. It’s like replacing the vinegar with orange juice and expecting the cucumbers to still taste good on a sandwich.

Elliff’s article is a little long, but it’s quite good. Check it out!