Energion Direct

Category: Biblical Authority

  • Is Doctrinal Indifference Anti-intellectual Idolatry?

    by Dr. Allan R. Bevere, pastor, professor and author of Colossians and Philemon: A Participatory Study Guide, The Politics of Witness: The Character of the Church in the World, and The Character of our Discontent.
    In a book, New Testament scholar Scot McKnight co-writes with Dennis Venema, entitled Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, Scot addresses the issue of deconversion from the Christian faith. His primary concern is “the number one reason Christians leave the faith and the number one reason non-Christians find the Christian faith untrustworthy is the issue of the Bible and science” (p. 171). When Christians pit the Bible against science the result is a type of anti-intellectualism at work that sadly has pushed too many people out of and/or away from the faith because they cannot reconcile what really is settled science overall with a particular and deeply flawed interpretation of the Bible, particularly the opening chapters of Genesis. Since some feel they have to choose between one or the other, they all too often choose science over an unteneble understanding of the biblical text.
    There should be no mistaking that this deconversion has a serious intellectual component. Scot writes,

    Each [deconvert], for a variety of reasons, encountered issues and ideas and experiences that simply shook the faith beyond stability. In essence, those who leave the faith discover a profound, deep-seated, and existentially unnerving intellectual incoherence to the Christian faith.

    While Scot’s concern is with how one reads the Bible in reference to genetic science, I want to take Scot’s concern over the anti-intellectual approach some Christians take in reference to scientific inquiry and apply it to a different, albeit a similar kind of anti-intellectualism among another group of Christians– the doctrinally indifferent. [Read more … ]  
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

  • Edward W. H. Vick: Resurrection As Fulfilment

    by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, History and Christian Faith and more!
    Through the resurrection God brings into being His new people, the community of resurrection faith. The spokesmen of this earliest faith, the writers of our New Testament, related what God had done in Jesus Christ to what He had done in Old Testament days. They read what God had done in Jesus Christ in the light of what He had promised and what He had done in the history of the Hebrew people. They saw that, in different ways, the revelation of God to Israel had now been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in His new community, the church of the resurrection. Jesus, as the act of God, had come to them from a past in which talk of God’s activity was assumed at the very basis of faith. It was this knowledge of God, as a God of mighty acts, a saving God who moved to effect the health and the salvation and righteousness of His people, that enabled the Christian believers to proclaim that in the resurrection of Jesus there was manifest the decisive act of God.
    Resurrection is God’s act. This was the message of the early Christian preachers. It was God who raised up Jesus from the dead, and in this act fulfilled his promises. Now that they could confess the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the Christian believers could take a second look at the prophecies of the Old Testament and the great promises of God to the key figures in the history of Israel. In this way, God’s promises to Israel were viewed in a new light. A most important conviction emerged (as stated in II Corinthians 1:20): ‘ALL the promises of God find their Yes in Him’ (R.S.V). The Old Testament was thus seen as a series of anticipatory promises, whose meaning and purpose could be seen only in the light of God’s act in raising Jesus from the dead. Thus, the books of the Old Testament came to be read for the encouragement of the churches, and as source materials for the confession of faith in Jesus Christ. The promises therein written were now seen to contain new possibilities. The Gospel of God had been promised ‘beforehand by His prophets in the holy Scriptures’ (Romans 1:2). ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ (Romans 15:4).
    What we have in Jesus Christ, according to the interpretation of the New Testament, is the future of the promises given to the Hebrews and documented in their sacred Scriptures. ‘Remembering the promise issued aforetime means asking about the future in the past.’ The Old Testament is a book of anticipation. The New Testament believed that it could look back from the vantage point of a fulfilment and see the meaning of what was said.
    One could approach the past with a new set of questions, and receive illumination as one did so. Was this indeed what the promises really meant? If so the future of the promises may have to be seen as quite different from what had been customarily and for long years expected. The anticipations and the questions took new shape as the answer gave a hint of what should be awaited and of what should be asked. It was in the light of the certainty of the answer that had been given in the act of God in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that the Old Testament, now seen as anticipatory of what had taken place, could be (as indeed it was) taken into the Christian community as a ‘sacred’ book.
    God’s act in the resurrection is His saving act in the world, His world, the world of His creation. That act is God’s creative word directed toward man in his need. God’s last word is not the destruction of sinful man in death. Jesus, who had identified Himself with the sinner, was put to death upon the cross. But crucifixion is not the last word. In the resurrection of this man there is revealed for the first time the possibility of a new relationship between God and the man whom he has judged in death — which means the revelation of a new situation in which God and the sinner are reconciled. God’s last word is not the destruction of sinful man in death but the foundation of a new life through the resurrection. In the raising of the Crucified, it is revealed that the peccator (sinner) can at the same time also be justus (righteous).’
    In Jesus man’s salvation is not simply promised, as it is in the prophets, in Jesus in the resurrection man’s salvation is realized. In Jesus the union between God and man is made complete. Resurrection follows death as the act of God. In Jesus Christ the divine righteousness has happened among men in the presence of this man. Through the resurrection divine righteousness comes to the unjust. He is raised for our justification (Romans 4:25), that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him                      (II Corinthians 5:21).
     
     
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • Video Interview: Dr. Thomas Hudgins on Who Was Paul?

    — Henry Neufeld, Energion Owner/Editor
    Last night I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Thomas Hudgins on the question, “Who was Paul?” Thomas has a different perspective from the previous authors I interviewed, which you’ll discover in the interview. I’d particularly call your attention to the answer starting at 29:03 regarding what Paul might say to the church in America today, and 33:30 regarding the use of Hebrews as a source for Paul.
    This is the fourth interview, and all four done so far can be found on my Resources for Studying Paul page. I have also been referencing these interviews in my Thursday night series regarding perspectives on Paul. Previous interviews were with Dr. Bruce Epperly, Dr. Herold Weiss, and Dr. Bob Cornwall.
    Here’s the interview with Thomas. You can read a written form of the responses (not a transcript) here.

    I’d also like to add here a link to The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul, by Dr. David Alan Black, which is referenced in the interview.

    (Featured image credit: Openclipart.org.)

  • Edward W.H. Vick: Acquired Tastes, Required Tastes and Authority

    by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, Philosophy for Believers, and more!
     

    Delicious Grilled Octopus
    We all have acquired tastes. Our first ones are gotten within the family. An obvious area is at the dining table. From childhood we get what we are given. Better said, we accept what we are served. So we get to know cheddar cheese in England and may never have heard of provolone while at home.

    An acquired taste easily becomes a required taste. Within the context in which is has been acquired is becomes expected. That is because it is the taste of what is served here. What you get day after day you get so accustomed to that you accept it as normal.

    But it is the same with conversation and ideas. As we grow as children we get used to certain topics of conversation. Regularity, repetition, leads to acceptance and endorsement. So as time passes we get so used to certain attitudes and accept particular ideas, beliefs and outlooks that they become so much a part of us that we come to take them for granted.

    ‘This is what we do’ becomes ‘This is what we must do’ and ‘we’ means ‘you’ because you do not have to make decisions, yet! Then there is a further step. What we do in the family is what you do as part of the family, and usually in childhood you do it naturally. But the further step is that what the family does and says, what father does and says, what mother does and says, is what you are expected to do,. Should you have questions, we will tell you what you must do. So ‘this is what we do’ becomes ‘this is what you must do, this is what is expected of you’. ‘What they do’ becomes ‘This is what I do.’

    Sometimes, if not in most cases, there is authority within the family. That means the child as it grows meets with approval and disapproval. Making clear what is expected is the first step to efforts to bring it. about

    It happens in many other social units. So instead of saying ‘This is what we do’, put ‘believe’ for ‘do’ and see what happens. Now take the religious case. ‘What we believe’ becomes ‘This is what we expect you believe.’ Intolerant communities have their pressures and sanctions if they discover disagreement.

    I have been reading a book about William Tyndale, an extraordinary virtuoso in the English language and the talented translator of the Bible. He lived in England in the sixteenth century. It is not generally known that the translators of the Authorised Version , sometimes called the King James version of the Bible simply took over ninety percent

    from Tyndale’s translation. He was one of the shapers of the English language. He was also an energetic publisher of the Testament he had produced. But he was the object of intense hatred. The reason was simple. He did not fit in with the ‘family’, namely the Church of King Henry and his court, Thomas More and Wolsey in particular.

    Henry was disaffected with the papacy for his personal reasons, but not from Catholic dogma, to which he was firmly attached. The breakaway Anglican church was violently opposed to Tyndale’s resolute attempt to provide ordinary people with a translation of the bible in a language that could be understood by all. Tyndale had stated his aim to give the ploughboy the Word of God in a language he could understand. And so he did. He gave ordinary people the opportunity to have the Word of God in their own language, and in a version of that language that they could readily understand. After his betrayal he was finally burned at the stake, as Wycliffe had been before him.

    The root of this persecution had its source in the assertion of authority Tyndale had challenged this, for his translation meant that those who read the Bible for themselves resisted the demands of the church both in doctrine and in practice. .

    ‘This is what we do becomes ‘This is what we must do.’ .,That then becomes :We means you. So They can then say to me,. We are telling you what you must do and say.,

    We will tell you what we do and then you must do. Se will then find out whether you are willing to do what we do. We believed such and such and so do such and such. So then they can tell me, so they can tell you what you must not do and say and what not believe. Then they find out if you co-operate, using whatever means are needed to get you to co-operate.

    But there was a further step Tyndale’s enemies took. Indeed it was the initial one taken as an assumption. What we tell you is what God is telling you. Our authority is God’s authority and we and our system is the means by which God is now speaking. What we are telling you is what God is telling you.

    Times have changed but we can see a sad repetition of the opposition in Christian communities of the conflict between an authoritarian demand for conformity and the allowance of the protestant principle that believers must find their own understanding and experience. Ironically it frequently occurs over the issue of understanding the scriptures

    now available to all. The very communities which inherited the benefits of the Reformation now demand an authority that insists that their interpretation of that available scripture be followed. In some conservative Christian communities the shift to discussion of correct method of interpretation even taker precedence over the actual understanding of the original text of Scripture.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • Edward W. H. Vick: Authority and Orthodoxy

    by Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully and more!

    9781938434549The explanation of authority might sound like this.

    (1) God has called and appointed the elders as custodians of the truth. God has ordained the leaders of the community and given to the group (committee, council) special guidance. This person , this group, those with these gifts, are given a special status so that their decisions, their pronouncements have authority i.e. are to be accepted as the true expression of doctrine. That means that it becomes the orthodox teaching of the particular community. When that acceptance takes place the teaching assumes a kind of fixity. The group may not originate the teaching, but endorse it, sometimes in face of alternatives, indeed sometimes because of the threat of what is considered to be heresy!

    (2) God has granted certain gifts to one particular person to enable that person to function as teacher, leader or prophet.

    It is to be noted that the existence of writings held to be authoritative may be taken for granted, may be presupposed. In that case the person or persons having authority will be expected to provide correct interpretations of such writings. Their interpretations will be taken as normative.

    Illustrations can readily be found of binding authority, sometimes virtual infallibility, for such interpretations: for (1) Church councils, e.g. Nicaea, Chalcedon, framers of the Westminster Confession and of the Thirty-nine Articles, contemporary doctrinal committees,

    For (2) also examples can readily be provided for outstanding individuals, e.g. Luther, Calvin, modern ‘prophets’.

    In every case the authority of the proposed teaching depends upon acceptance within the particular community of the status of the proposing group or person. That is often assumed, taken without question. But the believer should understand the situation and look for a justifying explanation to make clear why such status is granted. However, before it can be explained, it has to be recognised.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • Edward W.H. Vick: Interpreting Scripture

    by Dr. Edward W. H. Vick, author of From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine and more!

    Being Faithful to the Text

    Since the Scriptures are in some sense fundamental for the Christian theologian, how is he to be faithful to them in constructing theology? What does it mean for him to claim that what he says is in accordance with the Scriptures?

    Is he simply to repeat what the Scriptures say? But that would not be to interpret. To repeat is not to bring us any closer to understanding, but only restates our problem, when we have difficulties with the text. But of course the theologian does not begin from scratch. He does not start on his own. He stands within a tradition of interpretation to which he is indebted both positively and negatively. He affirms and he criticises what that tradition says. If he is at all constructive he follows and he departs from the guidance it gives him.

    The writer lived a long time ago. Is the temporal gap between him and us important or not? It may be. Time separates. I may be able to understand his meaning, and without any difficulty make it my meaning (whether I agree or disagree with it). But suppose his circumstances are very different from mine and what he said was closely related to his very different circumstances? Suppose indeed that what he took for granted can no longer be taken for granted since his culture no longer exists. How shall I interpret what he meant so that it has meaning for me? His words may well have a different meaning for me than they had for him. If that is the case, can we speak about being faithful to his meaning? How shall we know whether we are ‘taking’ his words correctly in our different situation? Note that the situation is different from one in which we want to know what the writer meant and could not (for various reasons) get him to pronounce on it (e.g. he was silent or he was dead). We are now asking whether there is a relation between his meaning and ours such that we may say that our meaning is a faithful interpretation of his.

    ‘Faithful’ here may mean: (1) that there is some common meaning or intention which we can specify between his meaning and ours; (2) that a generalization can be made to cover both meanings; (3) that our meaning is a possible derivative from his, that he may well have meant and understood what we understand by it if he were in our circumstances. In each case we have considered all the evidence available, historical, linguistic, literary, and theological. (4) that we in our time share the intention which the Biblical writer and in particular the writer of the New Testament shared and that we attempt to execute it in our context. The task is to interpret the revelation of God in Jesus Christ which takes place here and now. This involves presenting its meaning for us and its application to the situations which we now encounter. The continuity of the task is thus rooted in the continuity of God’s revelation in the past with his revelation in the present. This involves moving beyond strict ‘biblical’ theology to constructive or systematic theology.

    Langdon Gilkey addresses himself to the question ‘how the theologian is “faithful” to the scriptural source and how he or she shows a continuity with the spirit of major elements of tradition.’4 He writes, ‘Does this mean the theologian copies or repeats the words, the categories, the propositions of Scripture and tradition; that he or she makes a précis of Scripture or writes a commentary on accepted dogma? If copying or repeating is futile because anachronistic, what is it that the theologian “draws” from this source and this resource?’5

    He explains that the Christian tradition has a set of central symbols, through which it interprets the meaning of beliefs, values and goals.

    ‘In the Christian tradition these symbols find their normative expression, and for theology their source, in the Scriptures, since their primary reference is to the events of revelation to which the Scriptures witness. It is these symbols that are reinterpreted in various ways in tradition; and it is they that the theologian must reinterpret, re-present, in a manner intelligible to us and yet “appropriate” or faithful to their sense in their original locus.’6

    The symbols to which Gilkey refers are such as the following: God as Lord, as judge, as electing, choosing, covenanting; God as giver of the Law, God as redeemer, God as faithful; the covenant, the elected people, the Messiah, the new age to come. These symbols familiar in the Old Testament reappear in a new pattern in the New Testament where they are centred around Jesus Christ. In turn, new symbols emerge: incarnation, atonement, resurrection, trinity, second advent.

    He then explains the task of theology in reference to these symbols.

    ‘“Biblical theology” is the attempt to give a unified account of these symbols as they appear in the Old and New Testaments; historical theology is the story of these symbols as they have been reinterpreted in the tradition. Theology as a whole, then, concerns itself with these symbols and with their power to illumine our existence. The awesome and risky task of “constructive” or “systematic” theology is to provide or propose a unified contemporary understanding of that same complex of symbols, an understanding that is (a) faithful to their original sense in Scripture and tradition, (b) adequate to our own general experience, and (c) intelligible in our time.’7

    Doctrine does not simply repeat or summarize the Scripture. For one thing, it uses language not found in Scripture. For another thing it is selective. How then does doctrine, theology, interpret Scripture? The task of systematic theology is to present the meaning for today of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. In doing so it uses language which the Bible does not use. The Christian Church has done that from the beginning. Such theology is constructive in that it does for us today what the writers of the New Testament were doing in their time: interpreting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What we are in our turn interpreting in expounding the New Testament writings is itself a series of interpretations of this fundamental event. That event is Jesus Christ. As history proceeds each particular church community reflects upon the meaning of Jesus Christ for itself, and relates that meaning to the special circumstances of its own history. It will also take account of, and select from, the long history of Christian tradition that which it finds amenable and suggestive for its doctrinal construction.

    So what does it mean for a doctrine or a theology to be in harmony with, to be faithful to Scripture? Let us look at alternative answers to the question:

    (1) repeating the original words of Scripture;

    (2) repeating the original meaning of Scripture;

    (3) making a direct application (where possible) of the original meaning of Scripture;

    (4) making an indirect application of the original meaning of Scripture;

    (5) providing meaning not contradicted by passages of Scripture, where there are such passages as treat of the same subject;

    (6) providing meaning not contradicted by Scripture, for the reason that Scripture does not speak about the same subject;

    (7) doing today in our way what the writers of Scripture did in their way, namely to interpret the meaning of God’s action in Jesus Christ as we have experienced it, and in meaningful contemporary language, addressing men and women who live in our world and in no other.

    The right place to begin is with the last of these suggestions (7). We shall understand Scripture only if we know the reality they were proclaiming: the revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ and the faith which has responded to it. That happens now and the light from that continuing event illuminates the whole of life in our world: a very complex world. It is our task to show now how that event, that experience, casts light on our problems, for instance on our self-understanding or our understanding of our social relationships and on what we have learnt about it from the psychologist and the sociologist. How does the Gospel illuminate our world in which barbarity and oppression, affluence and abject poverty, hatred between human beings and totally inadequate social and political measures to cope with world problematic etc. etc., are so evident? It is this world of advanced knowledge scientific and technological that has made our outlook so different from ancient peoples in which we understand and present the Gospel of Jesus Christ as best we can. It is in this world that we address ourselves ever anew to the questions of humanity, Who is God? What is man? Why is there evil? Can there be hope? Who am I?

    We shall as we do so construct our answers in different ways. Sometimes Scripture language will seem appropriate. At other times the language of Scripture will be very remote from the problems with which we wrestle. That is only to be expected. They did not live in our scientific, bureaucratic, technological and international world. But that to which they witness is that to which we witness. We are bound together in a common witness and in a common task.

    To attempt to fulfil this task will obviously take us beyond the text of Scripture . It will involve us in construction of language and ideas, in the use of words and concepts from secular and non-theological spheres. But in being faithful to Jesus Christ, we are in our turn and in our way being faithful to the Bible.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • Inspiration of Scripture: Meaning What?

    Inspiration of Scripture: Meaning What?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    l. Theory and Fact

    The incentive for constructing theories of inspiration is to provide a basis for asserting the authority of the Bible. The Bible, so the argument goes, has authority because it is inspired, and it is inspired in the way the theory of inspiration accounts for it. Since we know how the scriptural books came into being and how they became part of the canon, we simply have to reject any theories which do not take this process into account, or which do not take it sufficiently into account.1 The question how in fact a scriptural writing was produced is decisive: ‘the real question is whether in fact such a writing was ever produced to form part of the Bible as we know it today. It is by this criterion, and not by its inner logic or consistency, that the relevance of the scholastic theology of inspiration must be judged.’2

    The question how in fact a scriptural writing was produced is decisive. It is the criterion by which we must judge not only a scholastic theology of inspiration but any theology of inspiration. What is at issue is the relevance of any theology of inspiration. In view of what we now know concerning how the book came to its final form, we ask how a theory of inspiration can be helpful and what it is that it explains. We must keep the demands of what we know about the actual production of the literature always before our minds. We go seriously wrong if we do not constantly keep in mind what happened in the long story of the composition, compilation and acceptance of the Bible.

    A theory of inspiration may make claims that are easily shown to be false by carefully examining the facts. It will either ignore or explain away the facts. Any satisfactory doctrine of inspiration will take account of these data, and be compatible with them. It will take notice of the history of the Bible, and its great complexity. It will not take as an a priori principle that the Bible is inspired, and then proceed to build on it, saying something like, ‘The Bible is inspired, therefore . . . .’ and then proceed to fill in the claim, e.g. there were certain ways in which it could not have been written. The last time I confronted the argument it went: ‘The Bible was inspired, therefore its writers could not have borrowed or copied from other sources in any shape or form.’
    Rather one first asks: What, according to the evidence which is available, are the stages and the processes which took place before the end-product resulted? If you ask this historical question, you will have to keep an open mind. It is not fitting, nor is it honest (even if one is sincere) to say, ‘Scripture is inspired: therefore such-and-such did not happen.’ We must seriously take account of the historical data. We may not overlook any significant facts in building a doctrine of Scripture.

    2. Some Well-established Facts about Scripture

    Here, then, is a short list of some well-established facts about the Scriptures. They represent the dedicated efforts of competent and devoted scholars over several centuries:

    1. There is an enormous range of styles in the Scriptures. Some is literature of the very highest rank. Other is ungrammatical.
    2. There are literary relationships between some of the scriptural writings. That means that the similarities are so close that they come from common literary, i.e. written, sources. Simply, the writer copied from other people.
    3. Oral traditions lie behind our written documents.
    4. The traditions were reworked, often several times, before the product resulted as we now have it. The process of redaction was complex.
    5. It was a common practice for ancient authors to use pseudonyms. They hoped to give distinction to their work by connecting it with well-known figures.
    6. It is at times impossible to harmonize some biblical narratives with others.
    7. Each piece of writing has come from a quite particular historical setting. In the majority of cases we can reconstruct that particular setting and relate the writing to the setting.
    8. Often, e.g. in Genesis, Kings, Deuteronomy, several oral traditions were set side by side.

    3. How the Books were Put Together

    The following is a very brief and simplified summary of the series of events that went into the making of a book.

    ‘Literary studies lead to the conclusion that the process of composition of a typical Old Testament book was as follows: a. groups of unknown people composed oral form to help them with their work, their worship, their teaching; b. the oral forms were passed on through the generations, undergoing small changes from time to time; c. local men of letters wrote down the oral forms with which they were familiar; d. in some period of great literary activity, an editor collected these various literary products and combined them into one large work; e. the large work might be combined with others to make up a complete roll.’3

    Any doctrine of inspiration must reckon with these facts, take into account this complex process by which the books came into being and the manner in which they came to have a special recognition in the church.

    4. Norms for a Doctrine of Scripture

    Even if we do not wish to enter into discussion of a particular viewpoint because we do not consider it an issue, it is sometimes worth­while to say why it is acceptable or unacceptable. ‘Inerrancy’ is the term used to refer to the view which holds that the Bible is without error, that it must be interpreted in such a way that one may claim that it contains no kind of error. ‘Verbal inspiration’ is the theory which says that the words of the writing have their origin in the divine initiative. ‘Dictation’ is the theory that God ‘spoke’ the actual words of the biblical writer, who duly set them down. Hence, the words of Scripture are the words of God. Dictation theory is not always, but very often, called upon as support for a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy.
    We shall now simply list reasons why a verbal, i.e. dictation, theory of inspiration is in error.

    1. The ‘writers’ do not claim to be inspired in this way.
    2. Only the originals would be so inspired. We don’t have them. Translations are of secondary value.
    3. It says nothing about the function of the books. Suppose they had been inspired in this way and left in a box and not yet discovered?
    4. Dictation theory is a caricature of the actual process of composition and transmission, which is quite varied indeed. It was ‘in many and varied ways’ that ‘God spoke’ [Hebrews 1:1]. Luke was not dictated to. Mark and other sources were copied by other scriptural writers.
    5. It makes the writers into puppets. The theory of accommoda­tion is an obvious enough rationalization.
    6. Evidence from the writings themselves contradicts a verbal inspiration theory.
    7. It misconceives the idea of authority.
    8. Even if it were true it would not establish the authority of Scripture. It only tells us how the words got on to the page.
    9. The writings are not without error.
    10. It fails to consider the historical evidence and in doing so distorts basic definitions, for example, ‘writer,’ ‘author.’
    11. It does not do justice to the diversity of the biblical materials.

    The question which raises a worthwhile issue is this: Can a duly modified theory of inspiration take account of the facts, some of which we have just mentioned? That is to say, Can a concept of ‘inspiration’ serve as a theological idea which can provide an adequate explanation of those convictions the Christian wishes to express about the Bible? Rejecting a theory of verbal inspiration, where dictation is the means, can we defend a modified theory of inspiration and account for the Christian attitude to and use of the Bible?

    We can certainly set out check points for any such doctrine. By referring to the objections made above to a dictation theory of inspiration, we can derive some norms for an adequate doctrine of Scripture. Any adequate doctrine of the Bible must give a satisfactory account of the following:

    1. What the ‘writers’ themselves claim or do not claim.
    2. The history of the original text, of its transmission and translation.
    3. How the books actually function in the Christian community. How the church uses the writings.
    4. The complex and various ways in which the writings came to be, and in particular,
    5. The creative individuality and contextuality, i.e. the humanity, of the writers.
    6. Evidence from the writings concerning the origin of par­ticular oracles, ideas and pronouncements.
    7. That the authority of the Bible is religious and relational.
    8. That the words of Scripture come to have such authority. This involves an extended process of recognition or canonization.
    9. That the writings are not inerrant.
    10. The history of the composition and compilation of the books.
    11. The great diversity of the biblical materials: including style, culture, religious and ethical views, form, and aim.

    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________________________________

    1Cf. Leo XIII (Nov. 18th. 1893).

    2Bruce Vawter, Biblical Inspiration. London: Hutchinson, 1972 3.1, p. 75.

    3David Stacey, Interpreting the Bible, London, Sheldon Press, 1976. pp. 44-45.

  • Has the multiplicity of interpretations made the Bible incomprehensible? —YES

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]

    by Steve Kindle

    Head-Brown smallFor those of us in the West, once the Roman Catholic Church lost its hegemonic hold on the content of the faith, it’s become “every man for himself.” Or in the words of pope of the Reformation period, “With every man his Bible, soon every man his own church.” Quite prophetic, wouldn’t you say?
    The Reformation’s emphasis on the right of every believer to interpret the Bible soon became warrant for any old interpretation that suits the interpreter. Who is there to suggest otherwise?
    Add to this that the scholarly biblical academy can’t seem to come to a consensus on, well, you name it. We’ve arrived at a point where biblical inquirers are presented with a smorgasbord of options, and we pick and choose as it suits us, with no better reason than choosing a Ford over a Chevy, merely personal preference.
    This all begins with the complicated nature of the Bible itself. In order to make sense out of the 31,102 verses, 1,190 chapters and 66 assorted books, it is necessary to employ a schema, or template, to organize its contents into a manageable whole. This is truly a “can of worms,” as the options for this are mind boggling. Additionally, the Bible is a product of people with a worldview quite different from ours. It’s a very difficult task to enter into that ancient world and think as they did. It requires immersing ourselves in cultures two to three thousand years in the past. Many bypass this step and just read it like the daily newspaper. This “what it means today must be what it meant then” approach is sure to yield disappointing results.
    What this has done to the church is create oases of partisanship based not on what is found to be the highest truth, but on, as we know from H. Richard Niebuhr on down, economic and political confederacies. It means, “I belong to my denomination because I was raised in it,” or “The people were good to me and so nice.” No matter that you are led by a Jim Jones (Peoples Temple), or a Martin Luther King, Jr. People who, indeed, attempt to find the church closest to the Bible soon learn that it is a fool’s errand. Even the New Testament churches present a wide range of doctrines and differ in many ways. What would the doctrinally perfect church look like? The fact that there are hundreds of options (if not thousands) reflects the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of making sense of the biblical data to anyone but the interpreters.
    The classic creeds from the Nicaean forward were attempts to cull the basics from Apostolic Christianity to bring order and clarity to the church. All they did was divide the church then, and today make understanding them as difficult as understanding the Bible. Homoousios anyone?
    A literal understanding of the words in the Bible is no help either. Whether the literalist understands it or not, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted text. Whatever lens we view the Bible through will control the outcome. And we all wear lenses.
    Now, as to the meaning of incomprehensible. The dictionaries basically define it as “unable to make sense.” My overall point is this: Because the Bible does not speak with one voice, but covers a variety of points of view, and even contradicts itself from time to time, one can’t expect its interpreters to do any better. This cacophony of interpretations is bewildering and finally debilitating to the average Bible reader who ultimately surrenders to what seems best, unable confidently to sort out the best among its many contenders. “This makes sense to me,” serves as the final judgment, because we make it make sense.
    Any “sense” made from the Bible, is a derivative sense, derived primarily from the approach taken in the reading. There is no obvious sense lying on the surface for any fool to see.
    None of this is, of course, the Bible’s fault. It has the inconvenience of being made up of words. Words are, after all, symbols, and symbols are capable of wide meaning, especially when read by people with different backgrounds and experiences. The meaning taken from the Bible varies greatly among women, minorities, third world, poor, oppressed, and oppressor (to name only a few). The meanings are so dissimilar that one sometimes wonders if they are reading the same book.
    The real question is, is this a problem? Not if you understand that diversity of interpretive outcomes is inevitable. In fact, diversity of interpretation, for those who remain tentative in their work, is welcome. Why? Because it acts as a corrective. If we remain humble before the text and are willing to listen to others, inch by inch, we may actually come to a more suitable outcome than simply camping on what seems good to us.
    This diversity of interpretations is also good for us. Paul’s advice that we “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,” puts the burden on seeking and finding for ourselves, but not just by ourselves, but in community with other seekers. Only in community can we be exposed to correctives and also the motivation to live out our discovered truths. Even though we may never find the ultimate answer (we see in a mirror, darkly), journeying together has its own rewards. In a very substantial way, the enigma of the Bible is also its greatest good.
    Now I know what you’re thinking. I may be right about some of the more difficult areas of biblical interpretation, but the Bible is very clear on what we need to know for our salvation. Oh, really? Is Paul the authority that we are saved by grace through faith–not of works? Or is it James who says that we are not saved by faith alone? Or are the Restoration churches correct in insisting that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation, or the Baptists who believe that baptism follows salvation? And all are against the Calvinists who insist that humans have nothing to do with the decision! (We could go on, couldn’t we.)
    Therefore, in the words of Micah,
    “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Or, as Ecclesiastes would say, “This is the end of the matter.”

    Steve’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-d-k/steve-kindle

  • How is the Bible authoritative?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

     9781893729100sThe question is:
      How to explain that the Bible has authority?
    That the Bible is unique is not the question. But why is it unique? Ask different people and you will get different answers, for different people read the Bible for different reasons, approaching it in different ways according to their particular contexts and their particular interests, subject to different influences. Are there, among the many and various answers given to the question, correct ways of addressing it?
    Most Christians would say that the Bible has unique authority. Some simply accept this proposition and think no further about it. They would not be thinking in terms of authority at all. They turn to it for comfort in sorrow, for help in day to day life, for devotional purposes. When is it appropriate then to speak of the Bible as having authority? Others, in accepting biblical authority, seek to give an account of why it has that authority. One account has a long history within different contexts and is held by many conservative Christians today. These claim that the Bible is inspired, that the inspiration is from God, and so the Bible has divine authority. This belief is elaborated in many different ways. This book indicates that these many ways make the concept of inspiration a most ambiguous idea, and one not suited for the purpose of establishing biblical authority. Since this is the case we must ask why and then pursue the quest for an alternative answer. Bur first we must answer the question, What sort of authority are we attributing to the Bible? or Is it a unique authority quite different from others, scientific, historical, moral and independent of them?
    The Bible tells vast numbers of stories. It speaks in many different kinds of symbolic language,
    A common designation for the Bible is that it is the ‘Word of God’. What is sometimes said to follow from this is that it is his communication, however he made it, to us human creatures through intermediaries whom he chose and with whom he worked in special and often unusual ways. The frequent model for the explanation of inspiration is that of the prophet. The details of the process are explained in different ways. Some downplay the human element in the process by which the human agents came to produce the writing.
    This explanation claims that Scripture has authority on account of the origin and the process of its inspiration. Not all explanations express the extreme view that the very words were provided to the passive but receptive agents who then wrote down those words in their language.
    But however the words got into the mind of the prophet and later onto the scroll or page, the process was inspired. Our language was not one of the original ones. So the process of translation was also inspired.
    This book provides evidence for the confusing ambiguity that results when this line of thinking is proposed. A traditional belief about the Bible can be expressed in three propositions:
    (1) It discloses truths about God and the world not available elsewhere.
    (2) It is authoritative, equally and in all its parts.
    (3) It is exempt from error.
    When we ask ‘How is the Bible used?’ if ‘used’ is the proper word, we find that very different answers are given. The words and sentences of Scripture get interpreted in many ways. Can we find right and wrong ways of answering this question?
    Give your answer to this question. Think of what it implies
    The simple believer seeks consolation, guidance, assurance in Scripture. The church seeks doctrine and derives it by interpreting selected writings of Scripture to frame a set of teachings, which are then often seen to share the authority of Scripture. Scholars have their own interests and methods in approaching Scripture. For example, they may be seeking the solution of historical issues. Other examples include researching  context and dating of particular writings, analysing how the text has been transmitted, searching for evidence for historical events referred to in Scripture, exploring how an accurate text is to be constructed from the evidence, finding and presenting the historical and cultural background of the writings and of oral traditions that ended up as components of the ‘books’.
    Some approach the Bible with no interest in the historical or contextual background of the texts being read. Others have a scheme of interpretation already in mind as passages of Scripture are read and pieced together with other texts and used as ‘proof texts’ to create doctrines.
    The claim that Scripture has unique authority is universally believed by the Christian. But there are right and wrong ways of defining and then accounting for that authority. This book examines that issue in some depth, as well as addressing itself to the other issues raised above, as it examines carefully the idea of inspiration. For conservative sections of the church assert that the Bible has authority because it is inspired. This claim calls for careful examination. It must take account of the fact that the concept of inspiration is a highly ambiguous term. So it must be carefully articulated. For it lends itself to a series of category mistakes. The book examines these by setting out the meaning of authority in this context. An inspired writing has no authority unless its ideas are transmitted to a receptive subject, society, or circle. It has authority only as it is read and interpreted. And it can be interpreted in different ways.
    The answers to the question about inspiration are multiple and complex, and very ambitious, like the concept of authority it seeks to underwrite.
    Why is the doctrine of inspiration constructed and what is it then employed to achieve?

    1. to identify the source of Scripture. God inspires the prophet or other functionary,
    2. to identify the process of communication: God speaks,
    3. to account for the condition of the ‘writer’ in the process: the subject ‘hears’ and responds,
    4. to account for the composition of the original: how the various texts were put together.
    5. to account for the unique status of the original product: these texts are set apart from all others
    6. to account for the unique status of the writing that results: it has divine authority
    7. to claim the authority of writings translated from the original documents.
    8. to underwrite the authority of those who interpret the writings.
    9. to support the obligation that both the doctrines and those who teach them be believed.

    When the church, for example, interprets Scripture and produces a set of doctrines, it often claims that those teachings share the authority of the Scripture itself. Then the idea of ‘inspiration’ may be employed to underwrite the obligation to accept the teachings of Scripture as interpreted. So arises a tradition of interpretation.
    Two sources of authoritative doctrine (= teaching) thus emerge, Scripture and tradition, often associated respectively with Protestant and Catholic. Whether this division is proper and how it might be made is given attention in this book, which insists that to understand the issue you must seriously consider the procedure of the hermeneutic involved. Any appeal to Scripture for doctrinal purposes must recognize that how you interpret will determine the outcome of the doctrine invoked. So you must ask what assumptions have been invoked in the process.
    It is because Scripture is interpreted according to different principles taken as normative that differing teachings emerge. Scripture is claimed as foundation for many divergent hermeneutics and for the doctrines they produce. Scripture has authority for those who so interpret it and for those who accept the proffered interpretations. The authority of Scripture is conditioned by the acceptance and employment of particular methods of interpretation. So both Protestants (of many different stripes) and Catholics agree. The results of interpretation of Scripture that each provides become normative, and the term ‘tradition’ is quite appropriately used of the results. Protestants appeal to tradition in appealing to the authority of their teaching, Catholics have made appeal to tradition an essential part of their outlook. Both are concerned that theirs is the correct way of interpreting Scripture. To speak of understanding the Bible is to attempt to find a profitable way of interpreting Scripture. Recognize that Scripture contains a great variety of writing, a multitude of stories and symbols, indeed a lot of non-literal writing and it becomes impossible to claim that everything is to be interpreted literally.

  • The Battle for the Bible

    by Steve Kindle

    I'm Right coverThe Christian church has never had a uniform understanding of how to interpret the Bible, nor has it had uniformity of belief over its now nearly 2000 years of attempts to do so. The historic creeds were an effort in this direction, but failed to unite all parties. Even among the proponents of the creeds, not all agreed on how to understand each proposition. There is no reason to expect that universal agreement will ever happen; in fact, there is every reason to believe it will never happen. Why? Because truth is ultimate and human beings are finite, incapable of accessing ultimate truth, though we likely touch the “hem of the garment” on occasion. I have no problem with that. My problem is with those who claim to have accessed the ultimate and want to make me (and you) conform to their notions of what the Bible means.
    The title of this post is also the title of a book written by a former editor of Christianity Today, the late Harold Lindsell, back in 1976. He argued that if an interpreter or institution began from the position that the Bible is not inerrant, it could only end in error. The battle that surfaced from this firestorm wasn’t among those Evangelicals who fought for inerrancy against the liberals, but over just what inerrancy meant among Evangelicals! Even here, agreement is hard to come by.
    My book, I’m Right and You’re Wrong! is an effort to understand why committed Christians, including even the loftiest of intellectuals and holiest of saints, read the Bible differently, and come to varying, even contradictory conclusions. This is no mere intellectual enterprise, for it involves the very nature of being human, our relationships with others, and our attitude toward those with whom we disagree. How we comport ourselves in relation to others who are involved in interpreting the Bible may well be the best evidence of our Christ-like spirit.
    The focus on inerrancy seemed like a good way to approach biblical interpretation until we dive even a little below the surface. Even if we acknowledge that the “autographs” (original canonical writings) were divinely inspired and free from error, we don’t have them. This makes that point moot. Add to this that the writings must, by necessity, be interpreted, and for inerrancy to have any immediate meaning, they must be inerrantly interpreted. And there are no inerrant interpreters (that I know of).
    Add to this that translations of the Bible are, themselves, interpretations. Any number of articles have been written to demonstrate that theologies often control how certain verses are translated. No matter how good a translation might be, it is always two to three thousand years removed from its origin, and replicating the mindset of the original writer is fraught with difficulty. Even knowing the biblical languages is no panacea as the linguists argue over interpretation as much as everyone else.
    Everything we read is filtered through our worldview, personality, and even our moods. Once, in an adult Bible study, I averred that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted verse in the Bible. One member said, “I can think of a Bible verse that needs no interpretation.” Tell us, what is it?” He quoted, “God is love.” My response? “What do you mean by God, and what do you mean by love?” My challenge is still on the table.
    I think the title of Lindsell’s book is a misnomer. It’s not a battle for the Bible as much as it’s a battle for my interpretation of the Bible to prevail.
    So, what’s a diligent reader of the Bible to do? That will be the subject of my next two posts. So, please stay tuned!

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.