Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Round Three: The Bible and Salvation

Well, our first two rounds of “OT salvation” and its corresponding issues have lead to this next item, one of great significance, as a boon to the Protestant world, and as the bane of the Catholic / Orthodox conception of authority…

Sola Scriptura, or “scripture alone”; it can be defined several ways, but for our purposes here we shall initially define it as, “scripture alone as our ultimate religious authority”.

Starting from our posts on OT salvation, we have come to this: The questions before us are

1. In our NT times, i.e. today, is anything other than the scriptures necessary to know the truth of God for salvation?

2. Can one know the truth of God for salvation apart from the scriptures today?

For this topic, we might also state the idea in view and in the “hot seat” as such:

How do we define the authority, reliability, and sufficiency of scripture?

It is indeed not a small matter, and it isn’t a needless dispute. Fully more than One Billion Christians, in name at least (another debate for later, so save that one), do not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, yet the Protestants almost to a man insist on it.

I personally believe in its primacy as an important doctrine to defend and uphold. My position is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

In order to set the table, this from our previous dialogue:

exist~dissolve

(It) depends, of course, upon what it is for which Scripture is assumed to be "reliable, authoritative, and sufficient." For example, Scripture is not sufficient, reliable nor authoritative in matters of, say, astronomical research. Does this mean that the value of Scripture is reduced? Hardly. Rather, it merely represents that Scripture has been wrongly applied to something for which it is not reliable, authoritative, nor sufficient.


Matt (Gummby) replied:

Given the scenario you described, I would probably agree. However, there are plenty of areas where Scripture is not given weight, but should be (I'm thinking of both the physical and social sciences). And many people refuse to allow the Bible to inform their thinking in these areas at all, thinking that faith and [fill-in-the-blank] are separate. But they aren't.

I'll save my thoughts on higher criticism for then.


Now is the time…

Without further ado, we now delve into that fracas…

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

“One Billion Christians…do not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, yet the Protestants almost to a man insist on it.”

Well…………..

I would agree that all true Protestants insist on it, but as you have previously noted, the ongoing, unrepentant sin of Episcopalian leadership (in addition to other Protestant denominations as well) demonstrate some no longer “protest” the mixing of purely Scriptural doctrine with the manmade variety.

Even So... said...

Indeed...

Exist-Dissolve said...

stevehall--

Well…………..

I would agree that all true Protestants insist on it, but as you have previously noted, the ongoing, unrepentant sin of Episcopalian leadership (in addition to other Protestant denominations as well) demonstrate some no longer “protest” the mixing of purely Scriptural doctrine with the manmade variety.


I still don't understand the language you are using. Who determines what "purely Scriptural doctrine" is? History is fraught with examples of heretic upon heretic who has relied "solely" upon Scripture to make their argument (i.e., Arius, Michael Servetus, etc.). Why is their doctrine--which is based upon Scripture--not "pure Scriptural doctrine? The answer is because it violates the apostolic tradtion which has been passed down and preserved within the tradition of the church. However, if this tradition is necessary to "check" the parameters of Scriptural interpretation, then one is suddenly far outside the possible parameters of "sola Scriptura." I honestly do not see how one can get around this simple fact without blatantly ignoring these issues which I have raised.

Even So... said...

Yes, it comes down to the interpretations, but the starting point must be scripture itself, and the ECUSA has started with an anthropocentric focus.

Yes, people can use "scripture alone" in an unscriptural way - the Church of Christ has been doing that for many decades with their three fold hermeneutic.

Yes, its not that historical orthodox interpretations are not consulted, it is how far we go in ascribing authority to them.

the apostolic tradtion which has been passed down and preserved within the tradition of the church

It has been warped, and the scriptures themselves will attest to which areas that have been so.

The writings of the early church fathers are indeed important, but they are not on par with the writings of the Apostle's.

Deviant Monk said...

stevehall-

I would agree that all true Protestants insist on it, but as you have previously noted, the ongoing, unrepentant sin of Episcopalian leadership (in addition to other Protestant denominations as well) demonstrate some no longer “protest” the mixing of purely Scriptural doctrine with the manmade variety.

Since every doctrine is a manmade formulation of what the bible is believed to say, then I cannot see how there can be a distinction between 'biblical' doctrine and 'manmade' doctrine, except based entirely upon personal subjectivity.

Let's say a response is that 'let's see what the scriptures say.' Ok. One now moves into the realm of interpretation, and one's interpretation is ultimately going to arbitrate what one believes the scriptures to say. E-D has given some good examples of past heretics who have appealed to the scriptures alone to justify their aberrant beliefs. (And before we get into accusations of heretics violently wresting proof-texts from the scriptures, let's be historically minded- Nestorious, for example, held heretical ideas,
(although many scholars debate if Nestorious was actually a Nestorian, much like it s debatable if Pelagius was actually a Pelagian) yet was a lot nicer and probably a better Christian than Cyril. One can have the best intentions (Nestorious naturally wanted to hold a very high Christology) and still interpret the scriptures errantly.)

even so-

Well, our first two rounds of “OT salvation” and its corresponding issues have lead to this next item, one of great significance, as a boon to the Protestant world, and as the bane of the Catholic / Orthodox conception of authority…

Seeing as Protestantism is hopelessly fragmented, it seems that it could be a greater bane to it than to Catholicism or EO.

How do we define the authority, reliability, and sufficiency of scripture?

A great question.

authority- since within the realm of sola scriptura the ultimate authority is placed upon one's interpretation of the scriptures, the authority of the scriptures is divorced from the stream of divine revelation and authority within the church and posited in the personal subjectivity of the individual.

reliability- if one holds to inerrancy (which sola scriptura practically necessaittaes, since it severs the link between the scriptures and the tradition of the church and imbues it within apparently objective and infallibly self-evident meaning, thus necessiatating that the scriptures conform to what one's worldview construes as relaity, truth, etc., which in the modern world seems to be mediated through modernism) then the reliabilty of the scriptures is seated not in its divine origin but in its conformity to what is phenomonologically verifiable.

sufficiency- sola scriptura limits the self-revelation of God to a few texts, which are necessarilly interpreted by the individual, thus effectively placing the sufficiency of the scriptures upon one's ability to understand/interpret them, rather than their being a living witness to the revelation of God within the church.

I personally believe in its primacy as an important doctrine to defend and uphold. My position is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

While you of course are free to follow your own conscience in this matter, a question would be: if sola scriptura is such an important doctrine to defend, why is it as a doctrine unheard of until after nearly 1500 years of church history?

You say it is contains everything we need to know for faith- let me ask you this: Would you consider belief in the trinity an important part of faith? If so, how could sola scriptura be affirmed since the orthodox understanding of the trinity is not explicitly taught in the scriptures? A lot of people have told me one can easily find the Trinity in the scriptures- and I don't say that the scriptures say nothing about the trinity- but I have yet to find somebody who can articulate the orthodox underatanding of the trinity by the scriptures alone, without appealing to ecumenical councils or creeds. This would seem to lay sola scriptura to rest, unless the trinity is an unessential doctrine. However, I would suspect you would say it is essential, therefore, I would like to see how an ordinary person can deduce the orthodox underatanding of the trinity from the standpoint of sola scriptura.

lol...you updated while I was writing this...I'll keep going!

Yes, people can use "scripture alone" in an unscriptural way - the Church of Christ has been doing that for many decades with their three fold hermeneutic.

How could you possibly determine that someone is doing sola scriptura in an unscriptural way without appealing to something as authoritative or more authoritative than the scriptures, which, since you affirm sola scriptura, would have to be your own personal interpretation?

Yes, its not that historical orthodox interpretations are not consulted, it is how far we go in ascribing authority to them

orthodox? you have left the field of sola scriptura far behind with this, sicne orthodox defines itself along the lines of apostolic tradition. What do you mean how far we go in ascribing authority to them? From a sola scriptura standpont, they could have no authority. To consult them would be to completely deny the sufficiency and self-evidence of the scriptures. So if somebody denied the Trinity and appealed to the scriptures (like Severtus, who had some learned arguments) what would be your ultimate authority? What is orthodox (therefore apostolic tradition) or what is in the scriptures (thus your own interpretation)?

It has been warped, and the scriptures themselves will attest to which areas that have been so.

So is the Trinity warped? The orthodox forumlations of the nature of Christ? Will the scriptures actually attest to what has been warped, or will they merely affirm whatever preconceived theology you bring to them? I suspect the latter, since you seem to be able to define what has been warped.

Even So... said...

Since every doctrine is a manmade formulation of what the bible is believed to say, then I cannot see how there can be a distinction between 'biblical' doctrine and 'manmade' doctrine, except based entirely upon personal subjectivity.

"I am God and beside me there is no other"....how manmade is that?

E-D has given some good examples of past heretics who have appealed to the scriptures alone to justify their aberrant beliefs.

That doesn't un-justify the position of using scripture. Tell me, would you even subscribe to prima scriptura?

One can have the best intentions (Nestorious naturally wanted to hold a very high Christology) and still interpret the scriptures errantly.)

True; your point being...?

Seeing as Protestantism is hopelessly fragmented, it seems that it could be a greater bane to it than to Catholicism or EO.

I refer you to this very recent article from
Phil Johnson

Anonymous said...

“Seeing as Protestantism is hopelessly fragmented”


Very ironic…….. the Church today, as most of its history, in essence has only one divide (two fragments): the ones who perceive Scripture as not only God-given, but God-preserved & the ones who declare this could not be. The divide in the Anglican Church is a microcosm of the greater divide worldwide.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The Anglicans of the first persuasion accept this as God’s unmolested & unwavering sentiment concerning homosexuals, the Anglicans of the second persuasion say nay. The essential divide truly is simple & singular in nature. I say “very ironic” because this division is not only a microcosm of the Church in general, but a macrocosm of this present discussion.

Exist-Dissolve said...

stevehall--

Very ironic…….. the Church today, as most of its history, in essence has only one divide (two fragments): the ones who perceive Scripture as not only God-given, but God-preserved & the ones who declare this could not be.

No offense is inteded, but this is ridiculous. Not only have you provided an extremely deficient conception of the "historical" issue involved, but you are also overexaggerting the issue and have wrongly defined Christian faith by one's understanding of the nature and function of the Scriptures. This is just wrong, though! We are not Christians because we believe in the bible--we are Christians because we follow Christ. Period.

The divide in the Anglican Church is a microcosm of the greater divide worldwide.

Are you kidding me?

Even So... said...

The BASIS of our faith is the Word of God: not feelings, impressions, probabilities, circumstances, other people, positive thinking, or presumption.

The FOCUS of our faith is Jesus Christ: not our own strength or well-being. The focus needs to be upward, to understand Jesus and His plan for our lives, not inward, to understand ourselves and have our own needs met. Christ centered, not self-centered.

The RESULT of our faith is holy living: a repentant mindset focused on the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and a yielding to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. We fall down, we look up, and He lifts us up to Himself.

The END of our faith is salvation: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls (1 Peter 1:9). Amen.

Even So... said...

I mean to say we follow Christ and we learned of Him from the Bible...

For now, though, let's get back to scripture itself, and its reliability, authority, and sufficiency, rather than trek off into the effects of such at first...we will go there, but lets set it up a little better first, okay...

Even So... said...

deviant monk said some things which I am still replying to, here is one easy one though that I think he just misread, which is okay, as we all do this, and this is why we must clarify and define how we are using certain words...

To wit, dm said

orthodox? you have left the field of sola scriptura far behind with this, sicne orthodox defines itself along the lines of apostolic tradition.

I meant orthodox as in consistently and widely held beliefs..that was why the small case "o"...I will capitalize the "O" or use EO for that communion itself...

Exist-Dissolve said...

I think DM meant it with a little "o" also...

Even So... said...

Perhaps, but I guess it really doesn't matter, looking at his comments again, we will engage those and it would be the same nonetheless, so whichever, we'll get to it...

Even So... said...

Sola Scriptura as I see it doesn't mean we don't stand on the shoulders of others.

The priesthood of all believers doesn't mean that everyone has their own interpretation that shouldn't be judged within the context of the larger community of faith.

The perspicuity of scripture doesn't mean that we don't need to study to show ourselves approved unto God.

Even So... said...

Continuing in our response to deviant monk,

How do we define the authority, reliability, and sufficiency of scripture?

A great question.

authority- since within the realm of sola scriptura the ultimate authority is placed upon one's interpretation of the scriptures, the authority of the scriptures is divorced from the stream of divine revelation and authority within the church and posited in the personal subjectivity of the individual.


Me:
Not entirely without merit, but not entirely accurate, either...

If we accept the church as ultimate authority then whomever is in authority there, if it is also an individaul, say the pope, then we end up at the same place.

Now the same things you might use to argue here would be the same arsenal I might use, so this idea you proffer is not convincing at all. Either side has "holes" in it. And yes, I would rather have a million popes than one.

This is also why we cannot simply accept the Westminster Confession of Faith as infallible, it isn't, but we must know what we believe and why we believe it. This is also why you and I can have vigorous discourse and it be a good thing.

Sola Scriptura is about turning our minds on, not off, which is part and parcel of what you seem to have as MO, and I respect that.

Even So... said...

The "on" part is what I respect, and what I meant about you, ha ha, which just goes to show, we do have to try and interpret sometimes...

Deviant Monk said...

even so-

"I am God and beside me there is no other"....how manmade is that?

Since that is a verbatim scriptural statement, I fail to see how it addresses my critique. That notwithstanding, I am not saying that a doctrinal formulation has no relation to what the scriptures say, or are believed to say. What I am saying is that when one makes a doctrinal formulation, one leaves sola scriptura behind, because the doctrinal formulaton is claiming to deliever the same message as the scriptures do.

However, I am wondering- from an inerrancy standpoint, could you even accept any doctrine, since that doctrinal formulation couldn't be considered inerrant? Unless you conclude that your ability to forumlate doctrines from the scriptures is infallible, which has been my ciritque all along.

That doesn't un-justify the position of using scripture. Tell me, would you even subscribe to prima scriptura?

I have never said that one is not justified in appealing to the scriptures. I am simply saying that an appeal to the scriptures divorced from the stream of divine revelation within the church ultimately posits the authority of the scriptures within one's own personal subjectivity.

As to prima scriptura- the question I am raising is not about the value of the scriptures; rather, my entire argument is that sola scriptura places the authority of the scriptures squarely within the individual's interpretation.

Your question assumes the ability of the scriptures to exist independently of the tradition of the church, which is unreasonable sicne the tradition of the church was instrumental in forming the canon of the scriptures. Any answer to this question would be the same as to my answer to sola scriptura; that is, I do not find a meaningful separation between the scriptures and the apostolic tradition of the church, so to claim one is of greater weight would be an unreasonable claim. It's like asking if the dogma of the trinity is less authoritative than the scriptures.

I refer you to this very recent article from Phil Johnson

Generally, my policy is to not read links to articles given me within discussions.

The BASIS of our faith is the Word of God: not feelings, impressions, probabilities, circumstances, other people, positive thinking, or presumption.

Come on. Let's not fool ourselves. All of those things are in play long before one ever approaches the scriptures. And one doesn't have the scriptures as a basis of faith- the basis and ground of faith is Christ. Otherwise, you are placing your faith in a book, which not essentially different from idolatry.

deviant monk said some things which I am still replying to, here is one easy one though that I think he just misread, which is okay, as we all do this, and this is why we must clarify and define how we are using certain words...

To wit, dm said

orthodox? you have left the field of sola scriptura far behind with this, sicne orthodox defines itself along the lines of apostolic tradition.

I meant orthodox as in consistently and widely held beliefs..that was why the small case "o"...I will capitalize the "O" or use EO for that communion itself...


I definitely meant with a little 'o'. The word itself, espcially in regards to religion, denotes established doctrine, which, within the history of the church, has been the apostolic tradition. Since the word 'orthodox' within the scope of Christian thought has referrred to that of dogmatic tradition, that seems to be the best and most accurate way to use it.
Sola Scriptura as I see it doesn't mean we don't stand on the shoulders of others.

So I see you would admit that your understanding of the scriptures has been mediated through something other than the scriptures themselves.

The priesthood of all believers doesn't mean that everyone has their own interpretation that shouldn't be judged within the context of the larger community of faith.

So now you completely deny sola scriptura. I applaud you.

If somebody's interpretation of the scriptures can be judged by an external standard, that is, the larger community of faith, then you have effectively made that external standard the authoritative means by which the scriptures are interpreted. Goodbye, sola scriptura.

The perspicuity of scripture doesn't mean that we don't need to study to show ourselves approved unto God.

So are we now creating a hierarchy of interpretive authority? Is it only those who study (to whatever arbitrary standard you are going to have to create to meet the requirement of 'approved unto God') who are able to have an authoritative interpretation of scripture? What of somebody who can't read? Or who has less developed linguistic skills? So is recourse now, in light of a competing interpretation, to claim the other has not studied enough?

If we accept the church as ultimate authority then whomever is in authority there, if it is also an individaul, say the pope, then we end up at the same place.

I disagree. Let's take the example of the pope. Very rarely is the pope considered infallible- there are many conditions that have to be met. The pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Otherwise, the pope speaks as a fallible human being. General councils, also, are considered infallible. A pope approbating the decision of a council does not legitimatize the councils' decision by virtue of the ex cathedra pronouncement; that is, it is not a matter of stacking one authority upon another as if they were different units, but rather a matter of giving a council's decision either a single (by virtue of no ex cathredra pronouncement) or double (by virtue of the ex cathrdra pronouncement) quality- in either case, the infallibility is neither diminished nor increased.

Also, a Pope could theoretically be deposed for heresy; thus even the ex cathedra pronouncments of the pope, though extra concilium, are given within the stream of apostolic tradition.

However, I'm not here to defend papal infallibility. I'm just trying to show that's it's not necessarily within the purview of my critique, since papal infallibility does not suppose the scriptures as the sole source of authority within the church.

Catholics believe that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra- I dont see how this is less palatable (or the same) than sola scriptura's ending point. Sola scriptura presumes the scriptures to be infallible, yet also presumes the inability of somebody to infallibly interpret them. Yet sola scriptura adherents believe that all dogmatic beliefs and things necessary for faith and life can be understood and known from the scriptures in such an errant context. Of course, for Protestants to make any truth claims whatsoever they have to resort to their inevitable version of infalliblity, which I have already mentioned, while in the same breath condemning doctrines of infailibility which they must continuously practice.

So, Protestants detest papal infalliblity, but must embrace personal infallibility, while continously denying it (at least to anybody but themselves, since their interpretation of the scriptures is what is going to be their belief of what the scriptures say).

It sounds like the Catholics get a much better deal, since they openly believe that the pope and the councils are infallible, and that this dvinely appointed instituion of the church (with its apostolic succession and tradition) safeguards the revelation of the church and protects it from individual interpretation.

This is also why we cannot simply accept the Westminster Confession of Faith as infallible, it isn't, but we must know what we believe and why we believe it. This is also why you and I can have vigorous discourse and it be a good thing.

So if the Westminster Confession isn't infallible, how could it define what you believe and why? Couldn't it be errantly informing you? What if your interpretation of the scriptures contradicted it? Of course, since you betray your reliance on it to sevre as the interpretive matrix for the scrptures, it is extremely unlikely, nay, impossible that such could ever occur.

Sola Scriptura is about turning our minds on, not off, which is part and parcel of what you seem to have as MO, and I respect that.

Sola scriptura as opposed to what?

Even So... said...

What I am saying is that when one makes a doctrinal formulation, one leaves sola scriptura behind,

I simply do not agree. We start from the bible, however, and not from the doctrinal formation itself.

I have never said that one is not justified in appealing to the scriptures. I am simply saying that an appeal to the scriptures divorced from the stream of divine revelation within the church ultimately posits the authority of the scriptures within one's own personal subjectivity.

As to prima scriptura- the question I am raising is not about the value of the scriptures; rather, my entire argument is that sola scriptura places the authority of the scriptures squarely within the individual's interpretation.


No, the authority is still upon the scriptures, but the conscience is guided by their own interpretation, aided with the orthodox formulations that they are familiar with. And that only if they are being truly devoted.

Yes, it causes problems in the way it works out for some, yes it has "caused" all this denominational mess we see, but no that doesn't make the alternative, that the scriptures are mediated to us through the church, right.

With all of your comments, it would seem you and I are simply missing each other....It all comes down to how we are defining sola scriptura, and I am not sure we can do anything here but go round and round regarding that...

Even So... said...

Are the scriptures sufficient?

Not, "will we make the right interpretations of them", but are they on their own, sufficient, irrespective of how others might twist them?

No one from the sola scriptura camp is saying that interpretations are infallible. We are saying that the church's interpretations aren't either.

The stream of divine revelation in the church? Who is the arbiter determoining which of these things is infallible? I choose to go with the Apostle's, and to test what other's say by the scriptures, as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11).

I fully believe that we have the checks and balances needed. An infallible interpreter isn't one of them.

Exist-Dissolve said...

The bottom line of this issue is that we need to get over our need for "infallibility." It is categorically absurd to begin with, and to extend it to the Scriptures, to the ecclesial tradition, to our interpretive abilities, ad infinitum, is the infinitizing of absurdity.

We need to get honest with ourselves, realize we are fallible, human beings, and rejoice in the fact that God became just like us in Christ Jesus.

Even So... said...

I agree with you, e~d, in that the Incarnation is truly key...

Bible above Jesus, no way....

I believe the scriptures are the thing that we can truly trust, but our interpretations of such will always be fallible to an extent.

God is infallible, we are not...

What God gave us is infallible, yes, but we do not have those documents today, and I think the reason why is so that we won't worship them instead of the Christ they speak of.

It is like the bronze snake Moses made, they kept it for over 800 years, and they were burning incense to it, until Hezekiah destroyed it...

I think John 5:39 also fits here...

We have enough information, we have the checks and balances, we have tradition, we have the councils, we have the creeds, we have the commentaries, we have seminaries, we have churches, we have our consciences, we have our experiences, we have the scriptures, and we have the historical evidence of Christ, as well as the witness of the Spirit in our hearts....I place the scriptures as foremost among these, but I place Jesus on the throne.

We have what we need, we need Jesus, and we have Him, with scads of evidences testifying to this reality....

This is where the "amen corner" on all supposed "sides" starts shouting....

Matt Gumm said...

Here's my two cents. Inerrancy is important as a foundation, because if we start from the opposite premise (that there were errors in the Bible even from the beginning), what is our basis? It is shaky from the start.

Someone might point out that this is purely theoretical, but I think it's more than that; if God inspired something, it ought to be without error. Now we can argue why & how error has slipped in, but in the end, it is truly remarkable to see what we have that has been preserved.

Ironically, I think the correct view of textual criticism starts with inerrancy--if the Bible had errors from the beginning, then it is impossible to get to the "original text," nor is there any need to; we should just judge what we have today based on what we see today. But if there is something special about God's word, then we owe it to ourselves to try to discern what exactly was given, even if that is not 100% possible. And we should jettison anything that isn't part of the original.

Case in point. 1 John 5:7-8. Someone who holds to inerrancy should, to be consistent, jettison the wording that was added: "testify in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One. 8 And there are three who bear witness on earth:" (HCSB footnote). At the same time, from Exist's perspective, it would be perfectly consistent to leave it in--because it is as much a part of the development of the Scriptures as he believes the scribes were doing reading back into the Pentateuch. There really is no final revelation or closed canon--just constant reinterpretation of what has previously been said.

Exist-Dissolve said...

Gummby–

Here's my two cents. Inerrancy is important as a foundation, because if we start from the opposite premise (that there were errors in the Bible even from the beginning), what is our basis? It is shaky from the start.

But it’s also very human, which is exactly the point. We want absolute, locked down answers to every question, but this is just not what God has given us. Even the Incarnation–THE VERY SELF-REVELATION OF GODSELF–came through the messy, imperfect medium of humanness. Moreover, I question the motivation for desiring absolute truth and knowledge. Do we really want it because we think it is necessary? I doubt it. As the history of modernism has clearly revealed, more often than not the quest for “absolute” truth is merely another means by which to gain power over others.

Someone might point out that this is purely theoretical, but I think it's more than that; if God inspired something, it ought to be without error.

Why? I see no reason why that which is inspired by God has to be “without error.” Moreover, being as we have no examples of that which is “error-free,” I question the ability of the human mind to even recognize inerrancy, if it is actually exists in Scriptures. I would argue that it is the very humanness of the Scriptures that makes it valuable, not the speculative propositional statement (which cannot be proven, only assented to) that they are “inerrant,” whatever that means.

Now we can argue why & how error has slipped in, but in the end, it is truly remarkable to see what we have that has been preserved.

I agree. However, the fact that the Scriptures have been preserved with such fidelity does not “prove” that they are infallible. Rather, it only proves that they have been of extreme value within the life and tradition of the church.

Ironically, I think the correct view of textual criticism starts with inerrancy--if the Bible had errors from the beginning, then it is impossible to get to the "original text," nor is there any need to; we should just judge what we have today based on what we see today.

You are actually right–textual criticism does proceed from these lines. That is why I seriously question the all-out capitulation of evangelical Christianity in adopting the VERY SAME CATEGORIES from which textual criticism proceeds. All I hear from evangelicals is how “evil” textual criticism is. Yet they actually affirm its conclusions (unwittingly, of course) by playing by the same rules and applying the same tactics by which TC operates. It is truly amazing that the evangelical community would be so opposed to the findings of textual criticism as it merely approaches the texts on the same level and assumptions as they do.

But if there is something special about God's word, then we owe it to ourselves to try to discern what exactly was given, even if that is not 100% possible. And we should jettison anything that isn't part of the original.

I don’t disagree that it is important, as with any other piece of literature, to determine, as precisely as possible, the original form and content of the writing.

Case in point. 1 John 5:7-8. Someone who holds to inerrancy should, to be consistent, jettison the wording that was added: "testify in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One. 8 And there are three who bear witness on earth:" (HCSB footnote). At the same time, from Exist's perspective, it would be perfectly consistent to leave it in--because it is as much a part of the development of the Scriptures as he believes the scribes were doing reading back into the Pentateuch. There really is no final revelation or closed canon--just constant reinterpretation of what has previously been said.

Again, I do not think that determining as much as possible the original form and content of the Scriptures is unimportant, or that textual additions are open game. However, as the testimony to divine revelation in Christ (it is Christ, not the Scriptures, after all, who is the “final” revelation of God) is much larger than the limited corpus of Scripture, the textual anomalies which shake the very foundation of evangelical Protestant belief are nearly a non-issue for me, for there is a much larger and more comprehensive tradition against which to interpret and adjudicate the relevancy and legitimacy of what is written.

Matt Gumm said...

However, as the testimony to divine revelation in Christ (it is Christ, not the Scriptures, after all, who is the “final” revelation of God) is much larger than the limited corpus of Scripture...

Could you give us some examples of what you see as other avenues of Christ's divine revelation besides the Scriptures?

Exist-Dissolve said...

Gummby--

Could you give us some examples of what you see as other avenues of Christ's divine revelation besides the Scriptures?

One major example would be the orthodox decreetals of the historic church. If we are talking of "inspiration," I would suggest that they are just as much so as the Scriptures.

Matt Gumm said...

One major example would be the orthodox decreetals of the historic church. If we are talking of "inspiration," I would suggest that they are just as much so as the Scriptures.

On what basis?

Anonymous said...

E~D-

“We are not Christians because we believe in the bible--we are Christians because we follow Christ.”


I never insinuated belief in the Bible is necessary for salvation; quite to the contrary, I purposely used inclusive language in reference to those of the second persuasion. I strongly disagree with those that do not hold to Scripture as fully inspired, but as you should note, I never excluded them from “the Church.” I join with Scripture in pointing to a relationship with Jesus Christ as the solitary “litmus test” of one’s salvation. This should have been evident by my response to your “thirty second” challenge of the previous blog:


“God clearly states you & I are sinners bound for judgment, but God has sent One to reconcile us to Him. This One’s name is Jesus & He took our punishment for us though He had no sin of His own. Pray to Him & His Father in Heaven right now to save you & He promises that when you die, you will not suffer for your sins.”


Not a word a about “bowing to the Bible” in there. (Certainly though, if it were possible, I would hand him a Bible & instruct him to study it daily, starting with John’s Gospel, then Romans)


Also, I’m not “saying a prayer at one point” in one’s life is salvific, but I agree with James:

“The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

I agree a relationship is not exclusively incorporated in a single prayer, just as a marriage is not based on a single conversation. This hypothetical proselyte, if his prayer were faithful, would be endued with the Holy Spirit & be consequently “called into fellowship”(with God through prayer)

It is not our job to separate the “wheat from the tares” but God definitely requires us to honestly examine His Word, challenge ourselves first with the conclusions & others second.


ps- sorry this response is a bit late, but I had a water pump to swap out.

Anonymous said...

even so,

sorry to get off topic a bit there, but I had to speak to that.

Matt Gumm said...

Second volley: if relationship with Jesus is the key, where are the revelations of him outside of Scripture? How can someone rightly claim to be in a relationship with Jesus (or anyone) if he doesn't know them? And how do we know we know the right Jesus if we don't have some kind of historical knowledge to base that on?

Related point: the problem with metaphorical interpretation of Scripture, and why I think the distance between Exist and me is a chasm, not just a stone's throw.

Exist: here's where I see the problem with metaphorical interpretation--where does it stop? I mean, how do you know when you're throwing out something important? Or, do you believe that there is a significance for events in the Bible that is somehow apart from them actually happening?

Here are some selected events from Scripture. Tell me which ones you think are literal, and which ones metaphorical (or figurative).

Creation (specifically, the Genesis account)
Adam & Eve's disobedience
Cain & Abel
The Flood
Israelites' exodus from Egypt
The Bronze Serpent

Each one of these has a significance that is lost if they didn't actually happen. That's why it makes a difference.

Not to mention, unlike your view, I think if they didn't take place as the Bible said then God is made a liar, because He is the one telling us about them. This is probably where we will part company, because you view the Bible as God's followers telling the story about Him, rather than it coming directly from God Himself.

Exist-Dissolve said...

gummby--

On what basis?

The same basis upon which I would say the Scriptures are inspired--the role and authority which they have occupied within the life of the universal church throughout history.

Exist-Dissolve said...

gummby--

Exist: here's where I see the problem with metaphorical interpretation--where does it stop?

I have never advocated that one interpret the Scriptures metaphorically. What you are talking about is a methodological approach--I am merely advocating that we recognize metaphorical language where it exists and avoid the temptation of explaining everything through materialist interpretations.

I mean, how do you know when you're throwing out something important?

How do you know when you're wrongly making something "historical" when it was never intended by the author to be such?

Or, do you believe that there is a significance for events in the Bible that is somehow apart from them actually happening?

Again, you reflect the modernist prejudice for "history"--why do things that have ultimate significance have to be historical?

Here are some selected events from Scripture. Tell me which ones you think are literal, and which ones metaphorical (or figurative).

Ok.

Creation (specifically, the Genesis account)
Adam & Eve's disobedience
Cain & Abel
The Flood
Israelites' exodus from Egypt
The Bronze Serpent


Again, I am not saying that these are "metaphorical" accounts in the technical sense. I am sure that the authors either believed that they "happened," or at least wanted their audience to think this. However, this is simply good story telling. And why do we tell stories? To communicate a deeper reality that cannot be captured in any other way. Does the fact that the story didn't actually "happen" (whether realized by the author or not) destroy the meaning? I don't think so.

BTW, concerning the different items listed above, a few are bit different in genre than others, so that will make a definite difference in how one interprets them in relation to historicity.

For example, given the proliferation of nearly exact creation stories throughout earlier and contemporary ANE literature, it is pretty obvious that the creation, fall, and flood accounts reflected a variation on a common cosmological theme that was part of the ancient consciousness.

On the other hand, the exodus narrative has a more incidental nature to it, so it may very well have some historical nature to it. Given the close parallels between the imagery of the bronze snake and the serpantine mythos in the creation narrative, it is certainly possible that the story of the bronze snake is a theological invention interspersed into the narrative.

Each one of these has a significance that is lost if they didn't actually happen. That's why it makes a difference.

The significance is also lost if we miss the meanings which the ancients applied to it because we are too committed to materialist conceptions of the "primacy" of history.

Not to mention, unlike your view, I think if they didn't take place as the Bible said then God is made a liar, because He is the one telling us about them. This is probably where we will part company, because you view the Bible as God's followers telling the story about Him, rather than it coming directly from God Himself.

Yes, I would definitely disagree. But even if one were to affirm that the Scriptures were somehow transcribed verbatim from the mouth of God, I see no reason why the non-historicity of some of these stories would make God a liar. Such would only be a necessary conclusion if one has presupposed that that which is historically verifiable is of the greatest worth. If this is not an a priori assumption, there is no difficulty at all.

Even So... said...

The bronze serpent "story" must indeed be historical, because of reasons I have already mentioned earlier in this meta.

The Israelites kept "the bronze thing" for over 800 years until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it.

They were burning incense to it, and they even had a name for it, which seems overbaord if it is only speaking of a type of practice of idolatry rather than a specific object.

As well, Jesus himself also mentions this item. If this is simply metaphor, are we also to take the crucifixion as metaphor?

Some have, and that is where I would not only part ways, I would point out...

Exist-Dissolve said...

even so--

The bronze serpent "story" must indeed be historical, because of reasons I have already mentioned earlier in this meta.

The Israelites kept "the bronze thing" for over 800 years until the time of Hezekiah, who destroyed it.

They were burning incense to it, and they even had a name for it, which seems overbaord if it is only speaking of a type of practice of idolatry rather than a specific object.


The account of the bronze serpent in the desert may very well have been 1.) an accounting of the origin of the bronze serpent which came to be idolatarized and 2.) a polemic against the improper worship of it.

As well, Jesus himself also mentions this item. If this is simply metaphor, are we also to take the crucifixion as metaphor?

I do not see why Jesus' mentioning of the story of the bronze snake in the desert establishes its historicity. We use metaphor all the time to describe our life experiences, and to make comparisons about what we perceive in reality.

Matt Gumm said...

The same basis upon which I would say the Scriptures are inspired--the role and authority which they have occupied within the life of the universal church throughout history.

So would it be safe to say that you consider the writings of the early church on the same level of authority as the Bible? Would you extend that further to the current RC Catechism? Also, any other examples outside of "the church" of inspired writing?

Exist-Dissolve said...

Gummby--

So would it be safe to say that you consider the writings of the early church on the same level of authority as the Bible?

I would say not, as none of the writings of any one particular early church writer--other than those of the apostles--have been considered authoritative within the life and belief of the church. With that being said, there are certainly many of the early church father's writers that approach the level of authority, simply because of the wide-spread usage of their writings within the life of the historic church.

Would you extend that further to the current RC Catechism?

I would not extend it to the current RC Catechism, primarily because it is not an ecumenically-held prescription for religious training.

Also, any other examples outside of "the church" of inspired writing?

Obviously if my criterion for inspiration and authority are based upon the usage of a particular document or tradition WITHIN the life of the church, it would be quite silly and contradictory of me to extend this criterion to writings outside of the life of the church. So the answer is no, at least in terms of "inspiration" that I have been talking about. That does not mean, however, that I think there are not other documents in the literature of human history that are not valuable in relation to faith.

Matt Gumm said...

Back up in the meta, the following took place:

Even So: The BASIS of our faith is the Word of God: not feelings, impressions, probabilities, circumstances, other people, positive thinking, or presumption.

Deviant Monk said: Come on. Let's not fool ourselves. All of those things are in play long before one ever approaches the scriptures. And one doesn't have the scriptures as a basis of faith- the basis and ground of faith is Christ. Otherwise, you are placing your faith in a book, which not essentially different from idolatry.

Monk: your preference not to read outside links notwithstanding, since you mentioned idolatry, I'm posting a link to a post I did awhile back about ways we can make the Bible an idol. It may be of interest to some readers of the meta.

Here's my question for you: what is the basis for knowing Christ, if not in "that book?"

Even So... said...

dm said,

but I have yet to find somebody who can articulate the orthodox underatanding of the trinity by the scriptures alone, without appealing to ecumenical councils or creeds. This would seem to lay sola scriptura to rest, unless the trinity is an unessential doctrine. However, I would suspect you would say it is essential, therefore, I would like to see how an ordinary person can deduce the orthodox underatanding of the trinity from the standpoint of sola scriptura.

What did those who articulated the doctrine of the Trinity use, but the scriptures?

Its in there, and we derive the doctrine from the scriptures. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in the scriptures. We are not talking about using only biblical language to describe biblical truth, that isn't what sola scriptura means.

Even So... said...

I probably shouldn't have back tracked that much in the meta, I believe we already covered that, our definitions of sola scriptura, between me and dm are different, and I don't think we will do anything but go round and round about that desl, as I said before, so I am moving on to other matters brought up here...

Even So... said...

e~d said,

The account of the bronze serpent in the desert may very well have been 1.) an accounting of the origin of the bronze serpent which came to be idolatarized and 2.) a polemic against the improper worship of it.

I do not see why Jesus' mentioning of the story of the bronze snake in the desert establishes its historicity. We use metaphor all the time to describe our life experiences, and to make comparisons about what we perceive in reality.


Your view turns us away from proper deference to God's words, and would have us instead make a “basic commitment” to the truth of some other words.

What of 2 Timothy 3:16 / 2 Peter 1:20-21?

Now dm and you might say, aha! this is what you do with interpretation. But I am here speaking of the scriptures themselves.

Exist-Dissolve said...

even so--

Your view turns us away from proper deference to God's words, and would have us instead make a “basic commitment” to the truth of some other words.

Well, of course, this depends entirely upon how one defines "proper deference." In my opinion, foisting a modernistic, materialist hermeneutic upon the text is nowhere near anything resembling "proper deference."

What of 2 Timothy 3:16 / 2 Peter 1:20-21?

Now dm and you might say, aha! this is what you do with interpretation. But I am here speaking of the scriptures themselves.


First of all, let's clear the air a bit. Neither of these verses is speaking of the "canon" in a holistic sense.

For example, as few, if any, of the other NT writings which we now have would have been written when Paul (or whoever) wrote it, it is clear that the writer is referring to the OT corpus of Scripture (itself not fully canonized), probably more specifically the Torah. Therefore, to expand this meaning to "New Testament" is not only an aberrant reading of the text, but is depends entirely upon placing authority to determine what will be the NT with the--gasp!--tradition of the church (who will later canonize an authoritative corpus of Scripture). So even if one wishes to read "NT" into "all Scripture," one can only do this if one affirms that the church has the proper authority to determine what, in fact, "all Scripture" is going to mean in the future. Considering what you have written thus far, I highly doubt that this is a conclusion that you wish to affirm. Yet, if "all Scripture" is taken to mean "NT," it is the only conclusion that you can reach and be consistent.

Concerning the 2 Peter text, it is obvious that, again, it is a very specific situation being spoken of--that of "prophecy," and the point of the text is not so much that the prophecy is divinly originated (although this is claimed), but rather that it is brought to pass not by the will of men (as if one makes a prophecy and then attempts to bring it to pass), but rather by the sovereign will of God. Again, if we are listening to the text, it would seem that the "canon of Scripture" is not being addressed, but rather a limited genre (which would, again, have been limited to that which was extant, i.e., the OT writings).

Even So... said...

The same Holy Spirit that guided the OT text also did so for the NT. Scripture is prophecy, not all foretelling, but forthtelling. Peter even mentions Paul as writing scripture.

Even So... said...

So even if one wishes to read "NT" into "all Scripture," one can only do this if one affirms that the church has the proper authority to determine what, in fact, "all Scripture" is going to mean in the future.

Not what scripture is going to mean, but what scripture (as far as canon) is going to be.

Perhaps you meant that, but even so, Peter, before the first century was even over, declared Paul to be a canonical writer. The early fathers had no choice in that, it was Peter's authority.

Exist-Dissolve said...

even so--

The same Holy Spirit that guided the OT text also did so for the NT.

I agree. However, that does little to establish the claims that you are concerning inspiration and the nature of the texts.

Scripture is prophecy, not all foretelling, but forthtelling.

Perhaps. However, in the passage you quoted, it is clear that the author had a more limited, "foretelling" kind of prophecy in mind. As before, you have improperly extended the semantic range of the author's phraseology.

Not what scripture is going to mean, but what scripture (as far as canon) is going to be.

So you agree that the church had the proper authority to determine the shape, form and content of the NT? If this is so, what it "means", as such belongs to the realm of interpretation, hardly allows for the concepts of "inerrancy" that you are suggesting.


Peter even mentions Paul as writing scripture.

Peter, before the first century was even over, declared Paul to be a canonical writer.


Well, the Petrine authorship of this book is hardly without dispute. Even many within the early church disputed the Petrine authorship (see especially Jerome's comments on this issue). But all this notwithstanding, the reference about Paul's letters being compared to "other Scriptures" is hardly a mandate for expanding the meaning to the "NT canon." Even in relation to Paul, which of his "letters" should be considered Scripture to the writer of 2 Peter? All of them? Surely not, as the early beleivers only preserved the few that we have. Therefore, there is clearly a meaning that is operating on a different level than the assertions you are making.

The early fathers had no choice in that, it was Peter's authority.

It's funny that you say they "had no choice," considering the fact that until well after Nicaea (325 A.D.), no listing of accepted "canonical" books included 2 Peter. Therefore, it was not the claims to authorship, as you suggest, that "compelled" the early church to finally codify it in the canon.

Even So... said...

Perhaps. However, in the passage you quoted, it is clear that the author had a more limited, "foretelling" kind of prophecy in mind. As before, you have improperly extended the semantic range of the author's phraseology.

Whatever....

So there are no other places that speak of God superintending His writen revelation to us? Not verbal dictation, but giving us a revelation that was inspired, to the degree that it is reliable, authoritative, and sufficient for faith and practice? What you are doing here is flat out denying the divine authorship aspect of the scriptures.

It's funny that you say they "had no choice," considering the fact that until well after Nicaea (325 A.D.), no listing of accepted "canonical" books included 2 Peter. Therefore, it was not the claims to authorship, as you suggest, that "compelled" the early church to finally codify it in the canon.

I was speaking of Paul, not Peter. Yes I realize that if Peter's books weren't written by Peter, it would negate that evidence, but I believe they are genuine, and besides, there is ample evidence that Paul was an apostle, did write scripture, and it wasn't disputed as to authorship.

Exist-Dissolve said...

even so--

So there are no other places that speak of God superintending His writen revelation to us?

Christ is God's self-revelation, not human language.

Not verbal dictation, but giving us a revelation that was inspired, to the degree that it is reliable, authoritative, and sufficient for faith and practice? What you are doing here is flat out denying the divine authorship aspect of the scriptures.

While I believe that humans authored the texts of Scriptures, I do not deny that God was involved and inspiring them. However, what I do deny is materialist conceptions of "inspiration" that force categories upon Scripture that are not only wholly inappropriate, but also do great damage to the role which the Scriptures play in the life of the church.

Deviant Monk said...

sorry to have dropped out for a bit- work has been nuts. but I'm diving back into this: (I'll try not to rehash what's already been discussed, at least not too much)

even so-

We have enough information, we have the checks and balances, we have tradition, we have the councils, we have the creeds, we have the commentaries, we have seminaries, we have churches, we have our consciences, we have our experiences, we have the scriptures, and we have the historical evidence of Christ, as well as the witness of the Spirit in our hearts....I place the scriptures as foremost among these, but I place Jesus on the throne.

checks and balances? checks and balances against what? So are you saying that one's interpretation, no matter how sincerely believed, is eventually trumped by these other things? Or does on'e interpretation eventually trump all these things?

What did those who articulated the doctrine of the Trinity use, but the scriptures?

If you read some of the works of the first articulators of the trinity, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, you will find that their appeal is to the tradition of the church, or the rule of faith, as determining what the scriptures mean. Tertullian's entire prescription against heretics is to not allow them to use the scriptures to argue, since their approach to the scriptures comes from outside of the church and its understanding of God. That is, since the heretics reject the rule of faith, the reject the scriptures that both come from and complement that rule of faith.

Its in there, and we derive the doctrine from the scriptures. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in the scriptures. We are not talking about using only biblical language to describe biblical truth, that isn't what sola scriptura means.

Ok, I never said it isn't 'in there.' I said it isn't explicit, not that it isn't implicit. However, one must necessarily make use of the orthodox formulations to arrive at the implicit meaning. The very fact that theological language was developed proves that the scriptures aren't explicit in defining the trinity.

If they are, please show me.

If you use language not found in the scriptures, how can you truly be adhereing to sola scriptura. I know you will balk at this, but please hear me out. For instance- we talk about Jesus as being fully God and fully man, and we understand the nature of Christ in a certain way- ie, as defined by Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. That means we have an understanding of Christ that excludes certain ways of thinking of that nature, and thus there is certain langauge that as developed to speak of this, such as Theotokos, etc. This langauge that we use posits certain meanings upon the texts that are not explicitly there- the debate at Nicea proves this, since the argument was over whether the Son is of similar or same substance with the Father. This language is foreign to the scriptures, yet we use it to interpret the scriptures, thus leaving sola scriptura behind. Therefore, I feel you are mistaken in your definition of sola scriptura. If you allow theological language as developed by the church, then you make sola scriptura less robust, and you essentially capitulate to the decisions of the councils (and the specific langauge they developed) as authoritative concerning the interpretation of the scriptures. Thus, even though Jesus explcitly says 'The Father is greater than I' we do not understand or interpret it in an Arian sense.

We apparently do differ on our understandings of what sola scriptura is- that's fine. However, as I have just argued, you are the one who's definition becomes so watered down as to no longer be meaningful.

Gummby-

Here's my question for you: what is the basis for knowing Christ, if not in "that book?"

The same as for people who either knew of Jesus before the Gospels were written, or for the majority of people throughout history and even today who know of Jesus but are illiterate- through the testimony of the church.

Even So... said...

The scriptures today give rise to preachers whom preach to cultures that haven't known Christ. The testimony of preachers, missionaries, and others whom do have the scriptures. The witness of the Spirit, etc.

Even So... said...

Not much action today, but I will be leaving all three relevant posts up on the front page for further reflection and discussion...

Even So... said...

Here is an article by a well respected scholar that I think we all should read...

Justification by Doubt

Even So... said...

Somehow the link got messed up; hopefully this fixes it...

Justfication by Doubt

Even So... said...

even so said

So there are no other places that speak of God superintending His writen revelation to us?

exist~dissolve said

Christ is God's self-revelation, not human language.

even so asks,

So how do people receive this revelation now?

Isn't it through language - faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17)?

Even So... said...

This is an interesting bit that might shed some light on things...


Al Mohler