Energion Direct

Tag: Edward Vick

  • 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′]

  • Biblical Teaching about Inspiration

    by Edward Vick

     
    Inspiration bannerWe begin this section with a caveat. We are speaking in what follows of individual writings speaking about other writings. The term ‘writings’ (or ‘Scriptures’) in the New Testament is the Greek word graphai, a plural form, from which we get such words as graph, graphic and all the other words of which these form a part (e.g. photographic, lithograph). This word has a general and so a rather vague reference. We cannot therefore, as some people would like to think, speak about ‘the Bible’s view of itself’. When some of the statements were made the Bible did not yet exist as a whole. Moreover the recognition of a particular body of books was in the future. Only when that recognition was established was it possible to speak of ‘the Bible.’ That was, of course, after the production of any particular writing. What we should rather say is that some writings talk of other writings. One may, of course, take what these writings say of those others as true of the whole. But that is an interpretation. It was not the intention — how could it have been? — of the writers themselves. This will become clear as we consider the particular passages themselves in some detail. We shall have to ask whether we can say for sure which writings are being spoken of, when the term ‘writings’ is used.
    It is therefore misleading to say, ‘the Bible claims’ to be inspired.
    There is no “the Bible” that claims to be divinely inspired. There is no “it” that has a “view of itself”. There is only this or that source, like II Timothy or II Peter, which make statements about certain other writings, these rather undefined. There is no such thing as “the Bible’s view of itself” from which a fully authoritative answer to these questions can be obtained.
    It is wrong to claim that the New Testament states clearly and unambiguously that ‘it’ is inspired. As we have seen, the canon has a history. Some books were considered secondary, even disputed. II Peter was one of these secondary books and II Timothy was considered marginal. This means that two of the less important books make claims about source writings which they know. The term Scripture means ‘writing,’ simply ‘writing’. We have no means of knowing which books they are speaking about. We cannot, must not, assume that II Timothy 3:16 is referring to the twenty-seven books of the canon which we adopt. We do not know how many such writings II Timothy knew. We cannot say that this passage represents the New Testament teaching about itself. The passage reads: ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.’ The marginal note correctly indicates that the language is ambiguous. It reads as an alternative: ‘Every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable. . . .The ambiguity is inherent in the Greek construction. The text reads: pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos pros didaskalian. There is no verb, no ‘is’ in the sentence. Rendered word for word, which in this case is not misleading, the passage reads: ‘every writing inspired and (or also) profitable for instruction.’ We have to supply ‘is’. But the writer does not indicate where we shall put it, and so we do not know which of the following alternatives he intended. We can read either: (l) ‘every writing is inspired and profitable’ or (2)‘every inspired writing is also profitable’.
    In the first case we have supplied ‘is’ after graphe ‘writing.’ In the second case we have supplied it before kai (and), which, since it then introduces a second adjective ophelimos, is translated ‘also,’ as it often is. There is no stretching or distortion. To translate the passage as in 2. is to render into English a perfectly normal usage from Greek. The sentence is ambiguous in Greek and requires consideration of both (1) and (2) to render that ambiguity. So much for the language.
    Therefore, first, we cannot say which books the writer refers to either from the meaning of the words of the passage, or from its context. We cannot, therefore, construct from this one use of the term ‘inspired’ a theory of the authority of the whole Bible. Second: the term is used only once, and the associations with the Greek culture render it unsuitable for use as the basis of a doctrinal theory. It is only as the concept of inspiration is duly qualified that it may be used as a theological principle. Even then it has serious limitations. This is because the Biblical materials are so diverse that we cannot impose one and only one model of inspiration on them.
    Even if it were the case that the Bible claimed that the Bible had authority, that the Bible was ‘inspired,’ holy, set apart, that would not prove that it was. We just cannot take as a general principle: What x, say a book, claims to be it is or, If someone makes a claim, that person is the something he claims to be.  That we must establish on other grounds. Not all those who claimed to be prophets inspired by God were prophets inspired by God. Several stories in the Old Testament make the point that other considerations than that a person makes a claim have to be carefully weighed before a decision is reasonably made about the claim.
    We mentioned the Greek concept of inspiration. The word theopneustia itself is not biblical. It is not found in the Septuagint but it is part of the religious vocabulary of Greece. Inspiration is a kind of possession. The state of mind is readily identified. It is a kind of madness, dementia, loss of wits and remembrance. The accompanying behaviour is unusual. The person has visions and utters words, is beyond consciousness and needs an interpreter to judge of their sanity and of the truth or falsity of the matter. When they speak they do not know what they say. ‘No man, when in his wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration, but when he receives the inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep, or he is demented by some distemper or possession.’ So it is necessary to ‘set up spokesmen to pronounce judgment on inspired divination.’
    Christian theology of revelation could be developed along such lines. Were that done, the unusual behaviour of the individual would then have to be explained. If one took the problem boldly in hand, the unusual phenomena accompanying the visitation might be taken as evidence that it was authentic. The physical or psychological state would then be interpreted as positive evidence of the divine activity. But that is the very thing in question. It is illogical, and so irrational to argue from an unusual psychological or physical state for support of the trustworthiness of the sayings delivered. Plato knew that. An interpreter or ‘spokesman’ (prophetes) was needed to assess the whole business.
    There were ecstatic ‘prophets’ in the Old Testament story, and they were considered to be mad. Their ecstasy was wild and contagious. It is as if something enters into a person from without and he becomes another person. Such is the literal meaning of ‘possession’ and ‘ecstasy.’ ‘The spirit of the Lord will come mightily upon you and you shall prophesy with them and be turned into another man.’ That was said of Saul. And when the ‘prophet’ comes with a notorious message to Jehu, his servants ask him, ‘Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you?’
    But the Hebrew understanding of prophecy did not in the main develop along these lines, the lines of mantic possession. Nor did the Christian understanding. It could have done, and later to some extent it did. Philo the Jew spoke of the divine possessing the human and shaping words within the man. Many Jews treated their books as though they had been produced in this way. Some Christian writers use metaphors which suggest possession of the human by the divine. Athenagoras speaks of man as the flute and God as the flute player. The Holy Spirit is like a player blowing into the flute.
    There is no suggestion on the part of the New Testament writers that this was the way they thought about the matter. They do not think of possession, nor of a verbally inspired text, nor of inerrancy as Philo had done. That was left to much later Christian writers for whom inerrancy and verbal inspiration was crucial. But from the beginning that was not the case. The reason for this is that they do not think of the activity of the Holy Spirit in this way. The Holy Spirit is active in the many and varied activities which make up the whole of the church’s life and witness. The whole Christian movement is inspired. Without the Spirit there could be no witness, no love, no unity.
    The term used of ‘the writing’ in II Timothy 3:16, theopneustos, means literally ‘God-breathed.’ It is a combination of the words for ‘God’ and for ‘breath’, ‘breathing.’ The term ‘inspiration’ is a very free translation, and is thus inexact. As we have seen, the term, once used of the writings, calls on a whole range of meanings which are not suitable here.
    Nor does the text claim a great deal for the ‘inspired’ writings. They are ‘profitable for instruction and for edification.’ That does not particularly set them apart from many other writings. The later high sounding claims made in the name of inspiration have no basis whatever in the modest association of theopneustos with edifying.
    Writers up to and around AD 200 have various ways of describing what it is that makes New Testament Scripture different. The writings are sacred because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The terms used vary. The writers are pneumataphorioi ‘bearers,’ i.e. instruments, of the Spirit. Their minds are ‘flooded’ with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the source of inspiration is the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the writings reflect the authority of Christ. The writings are kuriakai graphai (the Lord’s writings). Christ speaks through the writings. Some speak of the inspiration as having to do with the very words, and of the Spirit as foreseeing what would happen, e.g. that heresies would arise, and speaking appropriately to the situation they foresee. Sometimes Scripture is said to be perfect and infallible. Scripture is holy.
    The term for ‘spirit’ in the Old Testament is ruach, in the New Testament pneuma. In both cases the term means ‘breath,’ ‘wind.’ Breath is air in motion, and without inbreathing air there can be no life. Breath is life-giving. Without breath there can be no speech. When the breath moves over the vocal cords and articulate sounds are produced, communication becomes possible. It is itself invisible but its results are quite visible and tangible. The term ruach is in the Old Testament books used of the life-giving power of Yahweh, and of the revelation he makes through the prophets to man. He breathes the ‘Spirit’ into the lifeless form and man becomes a living being. He sends his ‘Spirit’ and the prophet speaks the ‘word of the Lord.’
    Since the term ruach, spirit, is a way of speaking of God, the writers of the Old Testament recognize that God is in some sense present in the very process by which he comes to be revealed. God is in some way present in the events which make possible the speaking of the prophet.
    So the metaphor of inspiration, in-breathing, has connections with this process of revelation. The word of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are dynamically one. When ruach is used metaphorically, at its root is the idea of movement, creative and revealing movement. Breath is air in motion. So there are remarkable and sometimes devastating results. The wind moves mightily. Storms follow, and leave their trace. So it is with the Spirit of God.
    It is clear that the ruach has many different meanings, and can express in concrete terms, physical terms, a quite basic conviction of the Old Testament, namely that God is active in the midst of his people in many different ways. The idea of God’s spirit influencing persons and events through persons underwent change and refinement as time passed.
    The earlier prophets behaved in very strange ways. On those occasions when the ruach came upon them, entered into them, they were filled as the lungs are full of breath. So possessed, they did strange things. Then the spirit left them and they resumed their normal personalities and more normal activities.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • The Concept of Authority

    by Edward W. H. Vick

     
    Authority 2(a) The term ‘authority’ refers to a relationship. It is a relational term. The term, like ‘revelation,’ points to a two-term relationship. Someone or something has authority over or for someone else. Someone reveals himself to someone else. Someone acknowledges the authority of another.  Someone understands what is revealed.
    The word ‘authority.’ The institution or the person that has authority has power over another. It has the capacity to influence that other, and it sometimes in fact has done so and does so. The authority may be charismatic or official. Authority may be the effect of the charm or persuasiveness of a person. It may be due to the social pressure of wide acceptance of power as legitimate. It is difficult not to be influenced by a widely recognized authority. We may accept it simply because there is no alternative. We are persuaded by the orator. We bow to pressures we cannot escape. Pressures and sanctions, or simply the threat of pressures and sanctions, can persuade us to act in one way rather than in another. The forces at work around us lead us to the acceptable behaviour. In this sense the term ‘authority’ refers to the effective influence which a person, a book, a custom, a belief, an institution has over people.[ene_ptp] (b) The term ‘authority’ is also used of the experts, the persons who know what they are talking about and who, because of this, deserve our respect when speaking. A person who does something competently may also be regarded as an authority when it is a matter of discussing how to do what he can do..
    To have authority is to have influence. Someone influences because he is a friend and we are trying to please him; or perhaps because he is an expert and we acknowledge the right he has to be respected. ‘Authority,’ ‘competence,’ and ‘recognition’ are thus all very closely related concepts.6
    They are closely related when we attempt to analyse the Bible’s authority. Here it is clear that the effective authority of the Bible is identical with the influence it exerts. It is also clear that an appropriate response on the part of the reader is necessary. One can acknowledge authority when one has experienced the influence of the writing in a particular way.
    (c) Authority is acknowledged power. When people recognize that a person, an institution, a class has the right to exercise power, authority is in evidence. ‘Power’ means the capacity to influence another, to get one’s purpose fulfilled, one’s ideas accepted and acted upon, to get one’s will done. Power can be exercised without being recognized as right and proper. Such power may lead someone to perform exactly the same act as the exercise of legitimate power might produce. If someone flourishes a revolver in my face, that will certainly provide me with an incentive to co-operate with the person flourishing it. But there are also legitimate ways of relieving me of—say—my money. I may recognize the structured power of bureaucratic authority and permit the taxman to claim some of my money. On this definition, ‘authority’ means both the exercise of power and the recognition of it as legitimate. Indeed, recognition is the defining element. This is the important element in our present considerations. Authority means recognition. Authority ‘is exercised only over those who voluntarily accept it’ (Juvenal).7
    (d). How and why do we come to acknowledge an authority? Does such an acknowledgment commit us to an automatic and uncritical acceptance of our authority’s pronouncements and demands whatever they are? What reasons can we give for our initial acceptance? Can a critical acceptance of authority lead to an uncritical following of its demands?
    (1) One reason for recognition of an authority is belief in the rightness of established customs and traditions. We are taught that we should adopt beliefs and behaviour patterns, and we never question them. They teach us, they train us, before we are able to reason. Later we may find reasons for believing what they have trained us to believe, and doing what they have taught us to do. They socialize us into a tradition of values, beliefs and behaviour, and having accepted that tradition we may never question its validity. We have our authorities handed to us. It is precisely because we have received them in this way, without engaging in a serious process of rational justification, that we feel greatly threatened when we are confronted with alternatives. Do we entrench or do we explore? Shall we give consideration to the criticisms or shall we dismiss them without further ado?
    (2) Max Weber8 recognizes another form of authority which he calls charismatic authority. An exceptional leader, endowed with outstanding persuasive qualities, gets a following. Such qualities as he manifests are seen as if supernatural, or superhuman. They set the leader apart from ordinary mortals, and make belief, loyalty, devotion and obedience easy and natural.
    (3) But we do not need to be impressed by such outstanding personalities to accept our beliefs on authority. Most of what we believe comes from other people’s testimony. We have not ourselves been in a position to test all the claims we accept. Nor ever shall. We are usually not inclined to test them. We simply accept them. Such acceptance works and we live together constructively. It was Bishop Butler who said that ‘probability is the guide to life’. We must act on the evidence we have. We can’t prove everything. In fact, we cannot prove much. We have to take things on trust. Our trust is shown to be reasonable in that when we act on probabilities things go right and not wrong. Many things we simply accept. We couldn’t get along if we didn’t.
    (4) But human beings, even the most exceptional of human beings, and even human beings under the influence of the divine, are fallible, limited and. suggestible. Suppose there were a human being who was infallible and at the same time was limited. Such a logical possibility is very relevant to the subject under discussion. We can think of an infallibility which extends to some matters and not to others, just as we think of an authority in some areas and not in others. I mean, it is conceivable that someone be infallible about some things but not about others. We can distinguish between total and partial infallibility. ‘He’s never wrong when he’s talking about such-and-such’ could be inferred from ‘He’s never been known to be wrong when he has talked about such-and-such.’ If we kept within the limits we could accept his authority.
    But if we began asking him questions beyond the limits within which he was infallible, that person would be of little help, indeed might even be misleading, if not irrelevant. That would certainly be the case if he were not infallible and we took him to be so, and it was important for us that he be right.
    (5) Authorities sometimes conflict. Which, if any of them, are we going to accept? When authorities conflict you have to decide between them. You can start with a high-sounding claim, ‘The Bible says so and so.’ And so it does. But one authority says that the Bible means this, and another says the Bible means that, and yet another says the Bible means the other when the Bible says so and so. When the authority, in this case the Bible, gives rise to such divergence in interpretation the individual will have to choose between the secondary authorities. I’ll choose my secondary authority, and repose my confidence there. But that only slides the issue along the corridor where I’ll meet it again. For why should I repose such confidence in that secondary authority rather than in another one? I have not settled, only shelved, the question of authority. This problem is acute when there is a conflict between interpretations, when for example contradictory doctrinal conclusions are constructed and presented as the biblical teaching. Of course, a passage may be set in different contexts and speak to different situations without providing the problem of conflict.
    (6) Religious believers sometimes combine authoritarianism with scepticism.9 They will sometimes say, ‘The authority is so sacred that we must not question it.’ Neither must we try to establish it, give reasons for it. It does not permit, nor require, proof nor even support.’ Such authoritarianism has its particular psychological appeal and that is the main reason why it persists. The intellectually timid or indolent are sometimes quite happy to let others do their thinking for them and believe what they are told to believe. They ask ‘What do we believe?’ and then demand, ‘Please tell me.’ rather than seeking the truth for themselves. They enjoy conforming and the freedom from responsibility such conformity brings. Such a person ‘may be more comfortable, for the search after wisdom often brings sorrow and disillusionment.
    ‘. . . Better to raise one’s eyes to the sky and seek humbly for the truth, even though the search result in failure and unhappiness, than to give our beliefs into the keeping of another.’10
    The sinister counterpart to such conformity is a belief in the virtue of conformity, That may lead to the opposition and persecution of those who quest for truth by those who are certain that they have found it. The will to dominate requires the will to conform. One psychological type supplements the other.
    The appeal to the sacredness of the text of Scripture is one example of this type of conformity, of this type of submission. One must not question a sacred text. But questions arise. Once admit the sacredness of the text and one is then free from the responsibility of answering questions that inevitably arise in relation to that text. It may then happen that the purported sacredness of the text gets projected on to the interpreter so that the interpretation is itself put beyond question.
    It is the initial step which must be questioned, the initial acceptance of the authority, in this case the text of Scripture, as untouchable, as beyond question. What if any is the rational ground for taking this decisive step in the first place? Or is it irrational? At what point does one refuse to give reasons for one’s belief?
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

    1726

  • The Canon of Scripture and the Question of Inspiration

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    Canon bannerThe Word ‘Canon’
    [ene_ptp]First, a brief comment about the word canon. This word, kanon in Greek, had a variety of meanings, and was rather loosely used in early times. It meant a carpenter’s measure or rule (like a row of numbers on a measure), or  a list. A canon was an ideal standard, something which served as a norm. So canonical people or books were those whose names were found on a list. A collection of writings is called a ‘canon,’ for example at Alexandria, because it sets a standard and can serve as a model.
    The term canon, when used of ‘Scripture,’ has three distinct meanings. All of them point to a collection of writings taken to have authority, to be unique. The word canon can be used of the books first, as they set the standard; secondly, as they conform to a standard; and thirdly, as they are found on a list.
    Canonical books are recognized books. Recognition involves decision. Somebody at a particular place and time recognized such books. Somebody eventually drew up a list and, in so doing, expressed a judgment about the books on it and those not on it. To produce such a selection required a principle of selection. It takes time, a considerable amount of time, for such a selection to be completed, several centuries.
    Christians inherited a doctrine of inspiration from the Jews. The doctrine of inspiration was later made into a very elaborate scheme and led to no little confusion. One thing is noteworthy. The term itself is not in evidence in the earliest judgments of the church about Scripture. Only much later did it become in some circles the standard, the orthodox, way of speaking of the authority of the Bible. But from the beginning it was not so. And with good reason. You can, as did the early church, affirm the primary importance of Scripture without elaborating a theory of inspiration.
    Would it be true to say that the books considered canonical had qualities which the doctrine of inspiration was later to emphasize? Are we able to say: because we recognize the books are inspired, we endorse their decision? But the fact is that it is just as difficult to determine whether a book is inspired as it is to say whether it is canonical We have already seen that the word ‘canonical’ has at least three meanings, namely (1.) functioning in the community in a special way; (2.) apostolic, that is traceable to an apostle or a close associate of one; and (3.) being included on a list.
    We shall discover that the term inspiration is also ambiguous and that we can give no simple answer to questions we have here raised. We do not simplify the problem by introducing a theory of inspiration to establish canonicity.
    One procedure would be to accept the decision about the canon and starting there proceed to discuss inspiration? Rather one might start rather earlier, look at the practice of the church, consider the books available and ask whether, for whatever reasons, the books they chose were wisely chosen. One might then relate the reasons for accepting the books to the discussion of inspiration.
    To conclude this section: (1) We cannot determine whether a book is canonical by finding out whether that book is inspired. (2) We cannot infer from how the book got written whether or not it has authority in the community. These are two different questions and we must not confuse them. (3) We cannot, without further ado, i.e. without further thought and investigation, simply accept the claim that the book or the writer is inspired or has authority, even if the book makes the claim for itself. (4) We must appeal to facts external to the writing to determine whether that writing has authority. (5) It is not sufficient to appeal to the fact that a book is included in a list of accepted books. Canonicity, in that sense, does not establish authority. We must ask whether we can agree with the reasons why the list was set-up in the first instance in the way it was, and whether it has continuing relevance. (6) We must inquire whether the list they made of acceptable books still has contemporary relevance. To do that we shall set the books in the context in which they are used. For that is where the issue of their inspiration and their authority is properly discussed. We may not find these terms to be the most satisfactory.
    To establish the status of a book we must consider the community in which the book is read and accepted, both its past — Who made the decision and why? — and the present — Who confirms the decision once made, and how? Does present attitude agree with past decision? Is there reason to reconsider, to re-affirm, or to revise older decisions once made? Then we may come to a reasonable view of the matter.
    We conclude that the question of canonicity is the question of the book’s use and influence in the community. That is determined by empirical considerations, e.g. by asking, Does it have an influence which is unique? Books which have current influence have authority. Thus a certain question becomes central. What influence does the book have in the Christian community? Answer that and you have a dynamic rather than a formal answer to the question of Scripture. We must be put practice into theory and then test the theory. We are then ready to address one further question: What sort of authority do such writings have?
    (7) A Paradox The contemporary church has inherited both the books and the decisions about which books are to be taken as primary and which as secondary. It inherits the decision and affirms it. But it does not examine all the books. It affirms the books it reads, and those it finds have been accepted. But it may not be aware of what other books there were, and are, to choose from. It does not say to itself something like: ‘Here are the books produced during the first two Christian centuries. Let us examine them, and choose the ones we consider appropriate and profitable to set aside for special use in the church. Something similar, mutatis mutandis, might be said about the Hebrew books.
    We should ask: Why does a particular church Community not do that? We can obtain and examine all these writings without difficulty. But most Christians have never read any of them. Why are we content to inherit and endorse a decision we did not make about which are the right books when we have not considered such books as, for example, actually were included in only some of the lists which were drawn up? Why do we continue to retain some books which were seriously questioned and whose place in the canon i.e. on the list was contested? Is it strictly honest to endorse such books as we are somewhat familiar with and exclude other books we have never read? Are we really prepared to leave that decision to someone else, without giving ourselves convincing reasons for endorsing that decision?
    Of course Christians are influenced by decisions of the past in the way in which we use the writings. That these writings are handed down to us as those chosen by some historical decision means that we do not, and will not, read other important writings, or consider them in the same way as we consider these.
    So Christians continue to use certain books and not others. That is the important fact, however it has been influenced by decisions of the past.
    This means that most Christians, most of the time, simply endorse the tradition. They simply accept what has been handed down to them from the past. Even those who most enthusiastically affirm the principle of ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ depend upon the tradition about the canon so that they can identify what the limits of the Bible are. This is usually done without much concern or criticism. As a result we have a strange paradox: to affirm both ‘The Bible and the Bible only,’ and to affirm as well the traditional identification of the Bible, limiting it to those books which the tradition has affirmed. It is particularly ironical that most Protestants assert that the Bible stands alone, while relying upon tradition to identify which are the books which constitute the Bible, tradition which existed long before the divide between Protestant and Catholic took place.
    So when the church acknowledges Scripture is this anything other than a formal recognition of sixty-six books?
    The fact is that the effective canon is not identical with the sixty-six books which the church formally defines as its official canon. The church does not use all portions of the canon consistently. ‘The church’ refers to the congregation, the churchman, the preacher, the theologian, the individual believer. Each of these is a particular entity. By ‘use’ we refer to doctrinal definition, proclamation, devotional reading, liturgical practice and have in mind the distinctions we made at the very beginning of this book.
    It is essential that we now make a clear distinction. It is that between books formally and traditionally defined as canonical and books or portions of books actually, repeatedly and consistently used in the various activities of the church. The effective canon of the church consists of those books and parts of books the church actually uses. These are a limited selection and are drawn from the whole which the church formally calls its canon. The official canon is the list of accepted books. Some will be used frequently, some seldom, some not at all. The ‘canon’ sets the outer limit. Within that limit there is selection. This means that there are inner limits. In the performance of its varied activities the church appeals to certain portions of the writings whose outer limits are defined by the official canon. The books whose limits are formally defined and the books actually used repeatedly and consistently are not identical.
    We might use technical language to make this important distinction.16 The community might say, We are not bound to an historical decision, a contingent decision about the canon, for the manner in which we use these books. The church identifies herself by specifying which books she uses. That means that the definition of what is the canon is made with and at the same time as an identification of the church itself. The church identifies itself by specifying as canonical those writings it uses in its varied activities.
    A further observation is important. We have in what precedes been speaking of the canonical books as formally defined, in contrast to books or portions of books actually used regularly and seriously. But, of course, books outside of the formally defined canon can, and
    often do, exercise as much or even greater influence on Christian under-standing, worship and practice than writings from the canon of Scripture. What writing is effectively authoritative within the church will be assessed in proportion to the influence it exercises and the acknowledgment it receives. The writings of a teacher, a charismatic figure, a churchman, a theologian may, in a given community, have more effective influence than whole sections of the formal canon. That is an important fact of church life which the Protestant must take into account in understanding what the principle of sola scriptura can mean. The activity of the Holy Spirit, so the church claims, manifests itself in many ways in the church. Some of them may not be directly related to the actual words of formally canonical Scripture.
    It looks as though the Protestant principle of sola scriptura might be compromised on two levels:(1) because of an acceptance of a definition of the limits of Scripture handed down by tradition, i.e. of an endorsement of the traditional pronouncements about the canon; and (2) because a non-Scriptural office or person or tradition may, in any given community, wield more effective influence and be referred to more consistently than the writings of the canonical Scripture, whole portions of which may be quietly left aside.
    So a doctrine of Scripture cannot be isolated from the life and practice of the community which uses Scripture. Otherwise the doctrine becomes formal and the church’s claim concerning Scripture does not then correspond to its actual practice.
    (8) Theological Significance of these Considerations
    We conclude with a brief suggestion about the theological significance of these considerations.
    (1) That the books of Scripture have a history means that human elements play an essential part from the very beginning and throughout the whole process of the book’s production. It is necessary to say this only because (at times) there has been a misleading emphasis in the opposite direction, to play down, even to suppress, any reference to the human. We may then have to insist that the books are human productions because so much emphasis has often been laid on the divine.
    (2) It is then a matter of saying how to speak well of God’s revelation in and through the books whose history we can trace. Christians affirm that these are the books through which God reveals himself, as they recount how God revealed himself in the past. This book is the written Word of God because of its intrinsic relationship with God’s revelation to the church.
    (3) Authority means influence. These books have influence of a particular kind. Christians accept them for having had and for continuing to have such influence. We must then, in giving a theological account of Scripture in relation to the life of the church, carefully state what this influence is. This will require clear, unprejudiced thinking.
    (4) The context for discussion of the Bible is where the Bible is spoken of as Holy Scripture, where it is received as having a special status, where, if it happens, God reveals himself. The authority of the Bible is not a property which inheres in it and which can be demonstrated, for example by showing that it is inspired, but rather connotes a relation in which divine and human elements both play an important role. Hence our insistence that we observe what actually happens with regard to the Bible in the practice of the church.
    We cannot do justice to the status of the Bible without dealing with the community, the church, in which the Bible is used, and in which judgments about the Bible are made and passed on, sometimes formally and sometimes informally. Only by speaking in relational terms shall we be able to do justice to the problem of the authority of the Bible.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

    Click on a book cover to get more information on that book.

     

  • 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.

  • Should we assume a scientific worldview when we come to interpret Scripture? —YES

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Not all post will have an opposing response. If you disagree with this one, please make your case in the comments.]

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    FOREWORD
    After presenting a definition of the term ‘worldview’ we consider two specific examples, the ancient and the modern.
    Then we note that one worldview has replaced another, and that the scientific worldview becomes the modern worldview which we accept as given. It has, shall we say since Galileo, come to replace the ancient worldview. Refusal to change leads to the irrationality of obscurantism.
    The modern worldview becomes comprehensive and demands either inclusion or rejection of .previous patterns of thinking. We all live by this worldview, even if we create an opposite worldview when we tell our infants fairy tales and delude them about Christmas and its delights. We stand aloof from it to give the nippers a good time with Santa. They will have to come to terms with the problem later. Then we will have to be honest.
    We then discuss what this implies for our interpretation and understanding of Scripture.
    THE PROBLEM
    Let’s first be clear that the worldview of most, if not all of us, who will read this is the modern worldview, within which we all do all of our thinking and decision making. This modern worldview is the scientific worldview. It provides the context for all of our thinking and decision making and acting. I say ‘all’ but some of us may want an opt out when it comes to making religious claims, and in our approach to Scripture. An anomalous situation arises if one takes a Scripture book to have divine authority and attempts to take all its claims as literal. It’s worth talking about!
    This modern worldview emerged to replace an ancient and medieval worldview, the one which assumed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that there was intercourse between the terrestrial and the supernatural, that remarkable things took place in the natural world. Indeed supernatural beings, demons and angels were to be taken into account to explain events that took place in the world for which no ‘natural’ explanation could be given. Demons and angels brought about evil and disease. Angels were the cause of good. Remarkable, previously unique, inexperienced and unrepeatable events demanded explanation from beyond the human and natural.
    Ancient documents took for granted in their claims and in the stories they told that the universe was structured in three stories: the earth (flat), the heavens above and the waters beneath. Part of their worldview was that there was interaction between celestial beings, the gods or God above, and human beings below.
    Scripture was produced within the context of such an ancient worldview. In its writings we find accounts of events the like of which we do not experience, have never experienced and do not anticipate we shall experience. Not being within the limits of our experience we believe they do not happen. We put them outside the bounds of possibility. So we do not think even remotely of their probability. We have no expectation that similar events might happen. We then question reports of such events, past and present. What this means for our understanding of such reports in Scriptural writings is that we look for a meaning within and behind the statements and narratives. The child, who once believed the narratives about Christmas to be literal accounts of past events, learns in becoming more mature later that there is a meaning behind the account of what he took once to be an historical account.
    So we are faced with a basic question. How shall we interpret those passages and the overall story the Bible tells?
    EXPOSITION
    We do whatever thinking we do within particular frameworks. This is of course a metaphor. It designates the set of assumptions and beliefs we hold whenever we consider how to assess or interpret things. We hold different frameworks for different areas of our concerns. A framework is a set of assumptions. Some are very limited. But there is also an overall framework that provides for all our beliefs and attitudes. This we call a ‘worldview’. When we think about the world around us, the sky above, the depths of the oceans, the existence of microbes and the extent of the universe as well as the sensations we experience, and the demands made on us for belief and action, we exercise our thoughts within an overall framework. What we take for granted as background we call our ‘worldview’. We may not be able to articulate this set of assumptions even to ourselves. For example, the ancient person could not articulate that all his thinking was done within the assumption of a three storied universe: waters underneath, sky above and flat earth accompanied with the assumption that there was activity between the divine transcendent and the human earthly. (See diagram below).
    We assume a causal relationship between certain events and reactions, historical, personal and physical. We have learned to make this assumption, at least after a childhood when we were bombarded with impossible and improbable tales. We know that some kinds of thing just do not happen, and we learn, if we pursue the matter, to give an account of the principles we take for granted in believing this and acting on our belief. Some kinds of thing are impossible. We have constructed a worldview, very different from that of our childhood. If we retained some of the assumptions inherited from our childhood, we would be led to give credence to very questionable beliefs.
    It seems that it is so easy to focus on one issue and forget that a whole set of assumptions lies behind our thinking about it. It is easy to focus on the first chapter of Genesis and neglect the background of the ancient Hebrew assumptions behind it. We have our own and different set that leads to our conclusions about its interpretation. For to our thinking as a whole there is a background of assumptions and beliefs that determine how we shall think. That background differs from age to age and from culture to culture This package we call our ‘worldview’. It provides an orientation that influences, determines how the individual or society interprets and acts within the world.
    As cultures differ worldviews differ. As cultures advance and knowledge increases so adjustments take place in the worldview. One worldview replaces another, or may sit side by side within a multi-layered culture. What has happened is that one worldview may become dominant and demand inclusion and if necessary replace another. The scientific worldview replaces the ancient worldview and then becomes the modern worldview. “Time makes ancient good uncouth.” Refusal to change means irrationality and regress. That exhibits itself in bad judgment and irrationality in reasoning and in act.
    What happens then when one who lives within the modern, western culture attempts to understand and interpret writings and artifacts from another world, from within a previous worldview? It is sometimes necessary to bracket one’s own assumptions in order to get within the mindset of the culture and the literature one is studying, to understand their world from an ancient or medieval point of view. But the bracketing ends with a return to one’s own worldview.
    Obviously there is conflict, whether within the individual or within the society when worldviews get replaced. Remember Galileo? His discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe was the immediate issue. What it called into question however was a whole system of religious thought underwritten by a powerful autocracy. That society endorsed a worldview now becoming outmoded, even if not recognized at the time.
    What are we to make of the struggle to hold incompatible worldviews? It is the situation where one cannot reconcile religion with the rest of one’s knowledge and so one wants and tries to cling to both in the belief that both are good. So arises what has been called the problem of the two compartments. It does not solve the problem but restates it. It produces the unstable equilibrium of the divided mind. One is reminded of the report of the words of a little girl.  “Of course I know that Santa Claus isn’t real, but I don’t want anybody to tell me.” That stance is similar to what some biblical literalists are thinking. To maintain such double-think leads to self-deception. The cure is to acknowledge the repression of the one attitude, and the incompatibility of the two views in unresolved conflict.
    Literalism is the interpretation of biblical statements for their literal meaning. Literalism is an extreme view of Scripture. It involves assuming an ancient worldview, the worldview that provided the context in which the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures came into being. When a story is told or an account of an event is given, it is to be taken as a true report of an actual event or phenomenon. This is an extreme view, especially when taken with the belief that the words and sentences are divinely inspired. This assumption constitutes part of a religious worldview. How can an ancient worldview we do not and cannot apply in our ordinary and contemporary living and thinking do service here? An ancient worldview accommodates all kinds of miraculous events. Hebrew and Christian Scripture emerged within the context of such a worldview. Can we allow for them what we would never allow if similar such ‘reports’ were presented to us today?
    So what results when the literalist, who for all practical purposes takes quite for granted the modern worldview as we all do when living our ordinary lives, for religious purposes, brackets or replaces it with the ancient worldview, in the hope that he can thereby justify his interpretation of Scripture. As we have seen, the result is the divided mind of the two compartments. Something has to change to restore unity.
    If we understand what can and cannot happen we have criteria for assessing reports, or purported reports in ancient documents. We understand what can and cannot happen, what is probable and what is not probable from our own experience and from reports, contemporary and historical, and so we are justified in the assumptions that constitute part of our contemporary worldview. We cannot take literally, as true reports of actual past events statements about animals speaking (Balaam’s ass), about the sun and moon standing still in the firmament above the flat earth by command (Joshua), extra terrestrial beings producing wholesale massacre (in the Assyrian camp), claims that human bodies move from earth into space etc. etc.
    A worldview will contain various paradigms. A paradigm is a mode of thinking, a set of assumptions or a basic principle that guide particular areas of our thinking. Within the worldview the use of different paradigms will lead to different interpretations, theories, assertions about reality. Take these examples: the paradigms of God as judge with apocalyptic intentions, and God as loving and merciful and forgiving.
    1. God as judge is in cosmic conflict with opposing supernatural, celestial creatures and the conflict involves earth and its creatures. It is exemplified in the apocalyptic passages in the book of Revelation. The classic example is Milton’s Paradise Lost. A contemporary example is expounded in the book, The Great Controversy. God is eventual master in a continuing cosmic conflict. But only after painful destruction of the opposition in a universal blood bath of fire.
    2. God as love, giving life freedom and meaning freely to humanity in the person of Jesus.
    The paradigms, taken as basic models for an overall interpretation of Scripture, and for the construction of a theology with their dominating images of God, lead to conflict. At certain points if not overall, these two directing and conflicting images of God will be set against each other, and one be preferred as the dominating one in a church’s theology. There is no question which one that should be.
    We have now considered how our worldview makes it possible or impossible for us to believe some reports of extraordinary events, non-repeatable events that run counter to the regularity of the natural world. But in approaching and interpreting Scripture we must ask an essential question. Since the writings of Scripture are expressed within the context of an ancient worldview, that worldview providing the context for its overall message, how do we get that essential message while recognizing that we do not and cannot accept the framework within which it was and is expressed? That is the task for serious interpreters to answer when they assume quite rightly that Scripture, carefully interpreted, is to provide the basic material for constructive belief. The questions are: “What is the message behind the form in which it is expressed?” And, “What is an adequate way of expressing that message?”
    SUMMARY
    1. We accept the modern worldview for all intents and purposes.
    2. We reject the ancient worldview.
    3. We also replace its forms of expression.
    4. The urgent task is to find the essential message of Scripture plus our own adequate means of expressing it.
    ________________
    Diagram 1 is of the flat earth of the ancients. In the languages of the Bible (and in others) ‘heaven’ means ‘sky’. The sky was above a flat earth. God dwells above the firmament above the earth, the terms ‘above’, ‘below’, ‘up’, ‘down’ to be taken quite literally. Sun and heavenly bodies move across the firmament.
    Diagram 2 represents the spherical earth, moving around a central sun, as do the other planets. The spherical earth has a second motion as it rotates on its axis. The earth is a small body in an expanding universe of staggering extent, measured in millions of light years.

    Hebrew worldview
    Diagram 1
    Earth
     
     
     
    Diagram 2
     
     
     
     

    Dr. Vick’s books may be viewed and ordered here:  https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-t-z/edward-w-h-vick

  • What Does It Mean to Believe?

    by  Edward W. H. Vick

    Philosophy coverThe question is: What does it mean to believe?
     The following sentences express some themes of the thirteen chapters of the book.
    Ask yourself these questions:
    What do I believe?
    Is it the same as what I say I believe, or think I believe?
    Is my belief reasonable?
    Is it justifiable?
    Is it true?
    Are these three different questions?
    Have I accepted what I believe without thinking about it?
    Can I believe something I do not understand?
     You will agree that some beliefs are rational and some are not.
    When you accept something as true (Is that what you mean by ‘belief’?) you may or may not have considered whether it is rational, whether you understand what you believe, why you are believing it, or to what extent you are being reasonable about your belief.
    Before continuing to read, you might like to take a specific example or two, preferable of a topic discussed in the book and ask some of the above questions about it, for example, miracles, self deception, identity, personal Identity, survival.
    Now you have had an opportunity to ask yourself serious questions about belief and believing. If you have already given yourself answers to questions about what and why you believe you are on the verge of or have already been doing philosophy. So if you are interested you can be even more serious by looking at specific topics and by examining them at greater length. Be warned that you will need to master the vocabulary appropriate to the topic in view, and should not always be content with simple answers.
    Philosophy for Believers addresses various issues in thirteen chapters, each one dealing with a particular subject of belief. What we shall now do is to take one of these topics for consideration.
    Here is a representative statement of belief: I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
    Certain considerations immediately arise. To consider whether our dealing with them will be reasonable, we must ask the following questions:
    What assumptions am I making?
    How do I understand the key terms I am using?
    Is the language I am using, understood in the way I understand it, adequate for the explanation I am trying to achieve?
    Are the steps in my reasoning logical, i e., is the reasoning valid?
    In particular: Does the conclusion I draw follow from my reasoning?
    To return to our statement of belief: we notice at once that it is very short and because it is so concise it invites various interpretations. The ordinary believer says and remains content with the simplicity of the confession and holds to the restatement:
    I believe we shall be given new life and that life will be never ending.
    The questions that arise from this simple creedal statement give rise to a multitude of philosophical problems. Our task is to specify which of the interpretations we can reasonably consider.
    Start with your initial assumptions, among them possibly answers to the following questions:
    How shall we conceive the idea of resurrection?
    What evidence do we have that resurrection is possible?
    What do I have to believe to accept that it is possible?
    What sort of life is eternal life and how is it related to my present life?
    Will I be the same person in the hereafter as I am now?
    Same person? So what constitutes identity, personal identity?
    Now let’s take examples of a process by which you reach your conclusion.
    You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and leading to a reasonable conclusion.
    Example 1: I believe in the immortality of the soul
    Assumptions:
    bodies do not survive,
    souls may survive,
    the soul constitutes the person
    God is active in the process.
    Argument:
    the constituent of the self
    the soul is inherently immortal
    connect the idea of immortality with the idea of the self
    Conclusion:
    The life everlasting is the life of the immortal soul. The soul survives eternally.
    Explanations required:
    Concerning the source of the assumptions, and how they are to be justified
    How to justify speaking of the soul as the constituent entity of the self
    How to conceive of the soul as immortal
    How to conceive of the possibility of retaining identity in the after life
    How to think rationally about eternity
    We now consider an example of a different interpretation of the same initial creedal statement.
    Example 2: I believe in the resurrection of the body.
    Assumptions:
    The idea of the soul is misconceived
    It is not needed to give an account of what constitutes a person
    It is therefore not needed to account for personal survival
    Speak of the body to conceive the survival of the person, i.e. of resurrection
    Search for a rational way of conceiving the identity of the surviving person with the original person
    God is active in the process
    [A hidden assumption (and all that it implies) may well be that the idea of bodily resurrection is what is taught in Christian Scripture and so should be the proper subject of rational explanation. However the philosophical treatment must stand on its own rational feet.]
    Argument:
    The idea of survival is to be connected with the concept of the body
    The concept of bodily survival can be conceived rationally
    This is achieved by introducing the idea of personal identity, continuing after death though resurrection
    The concept of replication achieves the desired result
    Resurrection of the body to eternal life is a reasonable belief
    Conclusion:
    You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and lead to a reasonable conclusion.
    Explanations required:
    Assumptions should not be taken for granted. Since we are engaged in a philosophical exercise, even if a primary source of a key assumption is that it represents the teaching of Christian Scripture, the argument will rest on the validity of the reasoning involved, i.e., the validity of the logic by which the conclusion is reached.
    We have taken the theme of chapter 11 as our subject. There are thirteen chapters altogether, each one dealing with an interesting theme of both general interest and also of interest to Christians. These chapters are supplemented with tutorials and Work Sheets. This makes the book suitable for use in the classroom, as well as for individual study.
    Having considered the above explanation I propose you attempt an answer to the following question:
    How does philosophical discussion affect the understanding of your belief?
    Suggestions:

    1. make some general statement(s).
    2. take a single belief that is important for you and examine it.

  • Is Jesus coming "soon"?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    Eschatology coverHere is the question for you:
    What do you make of the following sentences taken with the qualification, ‘But we cannot tell you when’?
    The end of the world is nigh.
    Jesus is coming again soon?
    God is about to judge the world and bring in his kingdom.
    *************************
    I am going to tell you a story soon, a parable really! But first some explanations.
    Eschatology has to do with the end. The Greek word eschaton means ‘end’. In Scripture and in Christian theology that means we shall talk about the future of the human species. But while so talking we involve ourselves in the present. Sometimes that present brings very trying times, the desolation, suffering and despair hardly expressible. Indeed Scripture expressed recognition of this and provided encouragement in striking and disturbing symbols. Some whole ‘books’ employ apocalyptic language, their purpose being to offer the hope that God is in ultimate control. For that reason, even if the present has to be lived under galling, violent and destructive conditions, it can be a hopeful present but one calling for continuous courage and patient endurance.
    Since the ‘end’ is in God’s hands, in the present there may be contentment, courage and hope born of patience. Eschatology touches the life of the believer in all aspects of life.
    The believer may live in hope that in the end goodness may prevail over evil. God will act in his wisdom and in his own time. But that time is never disclosed to humans. No one knows the day nor the hour of the final dénouement. There can nevertheless be an incentive in the here and now for constructive efforts, for endurance when persecuted. Such hope for divine intervention when final justice will prevail provides incentive for constructive, courageous and ethical activity in the here and now.
    Some, taking their cue from apocalyptic passages, feel that they have authentic knowledge of the nearness of the Advent, the parousia, the Last judgment. These believers even attempt to calculate from numbers in the apocalyptic writings when the final events will occur. When the event did not take place on the date or dates predicted, they experienced bitter disappointment. There are those today, retaining some of the original fervour, who say that they are living in the ‘time of the end’, a phrase often left undefined, but still serving as a basis for expectation.
    Among the many themes discussed in the book, I now select one for our consideration. For those who take their primary interpretations from the apocalyptic portions of Scripture the issue is about the end of the world and the introduction of the new age. Many believers are ready to say that it will be ‘soon’ but insist that neither they nor anyone can know when the event will take place. They cannot say how long it will be for the waiting to end. While they say they cannot specify a date for the Second Advent, they persist in saying, even with urgency, that it will be ‘soon’. They use various synonyms when asked what ‘soon’ means: ‘imminent’, ‘in the very near future’, ‘without delay’, ‘nigh’, ‘almost upon us’. Such emphatic denial that specific times can be given would seem to make the claim empty, or even not a claim at all. Look a little closer.
    There are some sentences that cannot be false because they cannot be true either. Why not? What kind of sentence could that be? Does it depend on what the words mean or what even a single word in the sentence means, or on how the sentence is put together?
    Finally, here is the parable.
    There was a farmer who had three sons. Each one of them said, ‘Father, I shall come to help you soon.’
    The first one, Bob, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, this Wednesday in fact.’
    The second one, Tom, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, within the next ten days.’
    The third one, Hank, said, ‘I shall come soon, but I do not know when and cannot say when. Nor can I give you a set limit for when it will be.’
    Father was well pleased, and went to bed content that evening.
    The sons got together afterwards and fell into conversation. Hank said, ‘Father seems very pleased and is looking forward to my help, even if I did not commit myself in any way. I did not give a particular date, and I did not set a time limit either’.
    ‘So, what do you mean then? That is not a proper way to use the term “soon” is it? It amounts to an empty promise doesn’t it?’ asked Tom.
    ‘I mean just what I said, I don’t know when.’ responded Hank.
    Bob broke in, ‘If you don’t know when, then you cannot say ‘soon’ can you? Or if you do, it can’t mean anything. We know what we mean. We know what we intend. Father knows exactly what to expect of us. But as far as you are concerned, you might as well not be coming to help at all. You have given father hope by saying you will come soon. You have taken away all meaning by saying that “soon” does not mean what the rest of us take it to mean. It is an empty term.’
    ‘So be it’ said Hank.
    ‘But look here,’ exclaimed Tom. ‘You have raised hopes in father but his hopes are not at all well founded.’
    ‘Look!’ said Hank, ‘what is important is that dad is happy. I do not see myself in the near future being able to spare the time. But if Dad thinks and hopes that I shall be helping, that is what is important. Hank smiled and continued, ‘Every time he asks why I have not yet come and when I will be coming I can always go on saying that I am coming soon to help. My “soon” is a kind of elastic ‘soon.’ It is an extensible ‘soon.’ So as long as Dad hopes and I go on saying I will come “soon”, we are both happy. He is happy because he thinks I shall be not long in coming. I am happy not to have to fulfill a definite promise. My “soon” is a different “soon” from your “soon”. ’
    ‘Promise!’ shouted Will. ‘You can’t call that a promise when no-one can possibly know what it means in terms of real time. It can’t be false and it can’t be true. It’s an empty sentence and such sentences can’t be false or true.’
    Bob said, ‘We have given definite information about when he can expect us. You have not said anything at all. You could go on saying your ‘soon’ as long as you live!
    So it was. Hank is still saying his ‘soon’ and Dad is still waiting expectantly.
    Consider hortatory meaning.
    Let’s now look at another example of a sentence that looks at first sight to be stating simple facts but whose primary meaning is something else and ask what that is.
    It’s six thirty and the shops shut at seven.
    If you ask, ‘What is the function of this sentence?’ the answer might very well be that it is suggesting, urging, reminding you that you should be getting off to the shops. It is not just giving you information. It is saying, ‘Let’s go. We’re hungry!
    It is to be taken as a command, a call for response. Commands are neither true nor false. They are not cognitive. So the primary function of a sentence that makes a statement may not be to assert something, to inform you of a state of affairs, even if you take it to be doing that, but rather to arouse you to do something. Its primary function is hortatory. It may state a fact. But the statement of the fact is not the primary intended meaning of the sentence. Its primary meaning is non-cognitive. The essential function of such a sentence is not to state a fact, but by stating a fact to urge you to action: ‘Go and buy some bread while you can! Don’t you know we’re hungry?’ The function of the whole sentence is to provide encouragement, to exhort, to suggest (sometimes urgent) action. That’s what ‘hortatory’ means.
    It has its hortatory function when two conditions are fulfilled. First, that what the sentence states is both true and is understood, and second that the hearer accepts that it states a fact. In our case, the temporal reference (i. e. within half an hour, or at seven o’clock) can be checked and only, if true, can it provide the ground for the incentive to act appropriately. Note that the temporal reference may consist in reference to a specific time, date or to a limit, a stretch of time as in the above case: ‘at seven o’clock’, ‘within half an hour’.
    *************
    What we have here discussed represents one topic expounded in the book Eschatology. Others include:
    New Testament Eschatology
    Prophecy and Apocalyptic
    Different kinds of eschatology
    Words and Meanings
    Jesus of the Gospels, the Eschatological Jesus
    Resurrection
    After the End

    Another book by the author discussing these themes is available from Energion Publications: Edward W. H. Vick, The Adventists’ Dilemma

  • Science, Religion, and Subjective Evidence

    Science, Religion, and Subjective Evidence

    Five Creation Books from EnergionIn our informal series of books on issues related to creation we’ve discussed how creation is represented in scripture, how one goes about forming a doctrine of creation that is truly Christian, and how someone who accepts evolution might reflect his in worship. Soon we will have a volume on how our understanding of God as creator impacts our lives now, and finally we’ll have a volume that talks about the basic science one needs to know about origins in order to understand the debates on the topic.
    Chris Eyre is one of our editors working out of the UK. He’s been working on editing the manuscript for Creation in Contemporary Experience, which is coming soon. He posted something today regarding science and religion, and the nature of internal or subjective evidence. Where does our experience stand as evidence? (Note that, as a good editor, he does not cite this forthcoming book in his post, but it is closely related.)
    In discussing such concepts of God as “ground of all being,” for example, he notes:

    They also, from my perspective, fail to explain all of the evidence, as they do not give any real insight into the mystical experience, the direct unmediated experience of God, which I take as a piece of evidence, as I mentioned above. They do have a transcendent aspect, which is singularly lacking in scientific materialism, and which is well harmonised with immanence of a sort, but it is a vastly impersonal immanence. The mystical experience is in my experience a vastly personal one, and I don’t find this reflected in “ground of all being” or “being itself” theologies, nor in the extremes of the God-of-absence of, for instance, Peter Rollins.
    I need something which at least explains the mystical experience as I have experienced it, which accounts for the evidence (albeit entirely personal) I have. …

    In his recent book Philosophy for Believers, Edward W. H. Vick occupies an entire chapter (6: Experience and God) on this topic. In this paragraph I hear a reflection of Chris’s discussion:

    For the theist the question of God is involved when the question
    of the purpose of existence is raised. At such point in our lives
    we may be faced with the question of the meaning of the whole,
    when ‘openings into the depths of life’ lead us to ask about the
    ground and goal of our existence. (p. 112)

    So what do you think? Is experience valid evidence? If so, does it operate only for the person who experiences, or can that evidence be shared?

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.