 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | ModesofThought
12/09/00 2:27 PM
Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this thought. The Bible [is]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am curious about which of these descriptions seems most natural to those who are regularly on the discussion board. It may help us see similarities/difference and recognize what sort of diversity exists (or doesn't!) among us. I realize this is highly subjective without clear definitions for each, but I am looking for a pattern to the language preferred more than the precise definitions you might add.
inerrant in every respect
inerrant re: doctrine
Redemption History
inspired and trustworthy
God's Word
can be God's Word (Barth)
the witness to Christ
a great but human book
View Poll Results
Jamar
12/09/00 7:49 PM
RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this thought. The Bible [is]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes of Thought:
I am so curious about this! Can you give a brief description of each belief that you listed concerning the Bible? What I wonder is this: I have alsways been taught that the Bible is God's word, but given what I am learning about free will, and humans, how is it that there is not one thing written that maybe was a a little wrong or off? (Even Jesus' disciples when they were with him didn't always get it right). They were still sinful people who could have made some errors...right? I am confused...can you please clarify?
Jamar
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/10/00 3:59 PM
RE: RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this tho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jamar,
Here you go (these are brief and rough and off the top of my head! Perhaps further discussion will give us occasion to dive in deeper to some of these):
inerrant in every respect -
Fairly self-explanatory, every proposition must be understood to be unequivocally true regardless of which fields of study it may involve. This would involve saying that the mustard seed is indeed the smallest seed, (though we know now that it is not) and that the world is held up by four pillars (likewise no longer a viable view of creation).
inerrant re: doctrine -
Insofar as the Bible intends to teach truths about doctrinal matters, God, Christ, the Church, etc. it does so without error. This leaves one wondering what sorts of things fall into the inerrantist column and which do not. It does get you around the problems of the view above, however.
Redemption History -
This view understands the Bible to be telling the story of God's pursuit of humanity, first through Israel and then through the Church. It leaves open for discussion the question of inerrancy.
inspired and trustworthy -
This is the view which might best work with Mephi's analogy out of this list. I did not have the verbal plenary view in mind when I came up with this one (actually my wife suggested this one) but it could be verbal plenary, or on the other end, it could be a more vague affirmation that God does speak through the Bible and we should trust it for guidance in all matters of the life of faith.
God's Word -
This is the most vague but also the most common (fully half the votes so far). Of course many have a very specific idea of what they mean when they say God's Word, but since I did not specify, it stands as vague among this list. For me, it is important to distinguish that Jesus Christ is God's Word (John 1), not the Bible, but many will say both. Standing alone, the Bible as God's Word, has a very strong authoritarian appeal (Don't you know the Word of God says…!) but it remains unclear here exactly what sort of authority and how it works.
can be God's Word (Barth) -
Barth understood that the Bible is a book (66 books to be precise), he knew that it was not just any book, but the book that God was in the habit of speaking through. It was not a foredrawn conclusion however, that every time the Bible was opened up that God was speaking the words on that page to the person who was reading. Rather, God's Spirit moves in the heart of the beleiver and speaks to the person through the Bible when and where God so pleases. (Calvinists will recongize here the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit)
the witness to Christ -
This is the view that leaves the questions of inerrancy and inspiriation for others to debate and is satisfied to confess that it is the Bible which records the words and deeds of those who where witnesses to the work of God through history. The anticipation of the Christ in the Old Testament and the fulfillment of that in the New. It sees the authors of the books of the Bible as witnesses to the work and Word of God. Authoritative insofar as the work and Word of God is important.
a great but human book -
This is the other fairly self-explanitory description. Of course, here the Bible has the kind of authority that any great work of art or literature might have. Though it may be the greatest human work, it is still fully human and has no mor authority than a human work can bear.
Hope that helps.
Again, my intention in doing this poll simply to see what sort of language people are used to employing in reference to the Bible. As Lion-Lamb has mentioned, what the categories are and how they are being used is very informative for the dialogue. We need to be speaking the same language as much as possible, or at least agree upon the meanings of the terms being used.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Jamar
12/11/00 1:52 AM
RE: RE: RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this tho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes of Thought:
Thank you very much for those descrptions! I agree that "God's Word" is vauge. I voted for that one before you gave me the definitions of the others. What I meant by it was a combination of all of the definitions except "Good but human book" and "inerrant in every respect".
To be honest, I did not know there were so many choices! In almost every creed that I have read having to do with Christianity, I have seen the word "infallable" (sp?). Would that term fall within one of these categories or could it be several?
Thank you!
Jamar
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/11/00 3:48 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this tho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I think there is nothing wrong with asking questions about the inspiration or authority of the Bible, we may be asking the "wrong" question altogether. I agree with what Brow and Pinnock say in chapter 15 of "Unbounded Love" at www.brow.on.ca
"Statements about the inspiration of Scripture in the Bible are more practical and functional than theoretical. Paul speaks very practically when he says that the Scriptures were given by the Holy Spirit to instruct us for salvation and to equip us for good works (2 Timothy 3:15-17). His emphasis is on the profitability, not the inerrancy of the original text. The apostle does not encourage us to speculate about inspiration but to profit from Scripture. He sees Scripture more as a means of grace than as an encyclopedia of information. And despite the humanity of the witnesses, the Bible is supremely profitable and shapes our lives. [James D. G. Dunn, "The Authority of the Scripture According to Scripture," in The Living Word (London: SCM Press, 1987) pp. 89-136.]
The Bible does not occupy the central place in Christianity that the Qur'an occupies in Islam. For Christians the Bible is subordinated to Jesus Christ, who alone has center stage. The Bible is not (like the Qur'an) alleged to be a perfect book dictated by God, untouched by any human or historical factors. [Hans Küng, Christianity and the World Religions (New York: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 19-36] The Bible is a more ordinary book and plays a more ordinary role. We preach Christ from the Bible, not the Bible as such. While inspired by the Spirit, the Bible is an anointed human testimony to Jesus Christ, a treasure in earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:7). The humility that placed the Son of God on a peasant woman's breast, allowed him to be arrested as a common criminal. And the good news of the gospel was proclaimed in a vulgar tongue. The divine humility chose to give God's Word in very ordinary human forms. [Jean Levie, The Bible: Word of God in Words of Men (London: Chapman, 1961), and Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), pt 2.]
Protestant confessions declare the Bible infallible for faith and life. This is a book that does not fail us . An ordinary ruler is good enough for the work that children do but not infallible for making engineering drawings. The best ruler is crooked when compared with a laser beam. The issue is not whether the Scriptures are inerrant for all purposes. The question is what sort of authority they have and what sort of truth they convey."
Admittedly, this tweeks some Christians in their defense of the faith, especially with certain atheists. They feel that they must justify having a "perfect" book, and they have to go to great lenghts to establish this. If they don't, then all of Christianity is not built on a sure foundation and will fall. And of course if the debate is framed this way then of course we will most likely lose. While, I know this doesn't have to with getting precise definitions and terms to understand each other, I thought I would just add these thoughts. With Mephi's analogy, to boot this is all related.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/12/00 11:27 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this tho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. I was just curious what people's assumptions were about the authority of Scripture. I concur that it is functional and practical and we do not benefit the church by teaching lies about the Bible. Here I refer to what seem to me "magical" views and the strong inerrantist views. Kierkegaard once wrote that even the doctrine of inspiration gives people a false security. He pointed instead to the fact that the "contradictions" in Scripture reflected the paradoxes of faith (ie. the "God-man"). Not sure I'd go that far, but the point is an important one. The Bible has authority for those who come to it in faith. Thanks for those great quotes Brandon.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/12/00 11:40 AM
Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what' s it mean? Complete this tho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ModesofThought said:
"Thanks for those great quotes Brandon."
You are welcome. Also check out the site that I mentioned. My wish is that the Webmaster will eventually link to his (Robert Brow) site because he is "the other" website on the web that talks about OT as well. Let's pray about this shall we?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/14/00 1:37 AM
Mephi's In the House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sup, all.
Modes, thanks for the blessings, man. Really meant a lot.
Well, peeps. Needless to say, that I have some real issues with the visions of Scripture that have been discussed so far. But I've decided for I do some more interaction, I'd like some info, if y'all don't mind.
1) Dr. Boyd seems really high on the Bible being the Word of God. I'd like to know his bibliology (as much as he would care to explain) and I would also like to know what he thinks of the findings of the survey conducted by Modes.
2)It's clear that Modes doesn't jive with the verbal plenary view. I'd love to know his take on biblical inspiration, and his justification for said view.
I'd be glad to return the favor, if need be
Truly your brother,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/12/00 9:57 PM
RE: Patience, Meph...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blessings on you as you study...
I should be doing the same!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/14/00 1:43 AM
For Note..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love all y'all
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/14/00 9:57 AM
RE: Mephi's In the House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have some questions for everyone/anyone about these different views of scripture, especially the verbal plenary and inerrancy views:
1) What is the history of these views? When did they first come into use? Who (individual or group) first embraced/developed them?
2) What claims does Scripture make for itself?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/14/00 11:05 AM
RE: RE: Mephi's In the House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******************************
GDG asked:
1) What is the history of these views? When did they first come into use? Who (individual or group) first embraced/developed them?
Mephi:
I would say that we have to delineate the issues correctly. The statements above, though cool for Modes purposes, seem to mix the concepts of inspiration and inerrancy. I'm getting ahead of myself, but that's part of the problem that I had with the survey as a whole. See, Christianity assumes a revelatory God (ie we believe that the Scripture in some way reveals information about God). Thus we can speak meaningfully of biblical revelation. The sticking points are HOW the Scriptures can reveal information about God, WHAT they contain, and HOW they were produced. All discussions about bibliology always break down to inspiration, inscripturation and inerrancy. Again, these are distinct concepts. It must be noted that any concept of inerrancy (or lack thereof) is ultimately based on one's concept of inspiration, NOT vice versa.
What I thought Modes was doing with his survey, was this:
"Which of these statements do you feel most illustrates how you view the Bible?"
For that case, specificity was not really that necessary. As I'm sure Modes would note, one's comprehensive bibliology could encompass MANY of the choices that he presents. (I know mine does) But, for your question, we may need to get very specific. So, what we may want to do is formally denote ALL the theories of inspiration currently used and the views of inerrancy that, more or less, correspond. In the meantime, I can provide the various view in brushstrokes here...These are paraphrastically taken from Millard Erickson's "Christian Theology" and Larry Hart's "Truth Aflame"
These are the theories of INSPIRATION:
1) Intuition theory:
States that the biblical authors only had a high degree of spiritual insight. It's like a natural gift or something. In this right, the biblical authors could not be distinguished from any other person perceived to have spiritual acumen, like Siddhartha or Socrates or whatever
2) Illumination theory:
States that the Holy Spirit did act upon the biblical authors but only to heighten their normal powers of intuition and spiritual perception.
3) Dynamic theory:
States that there is a combination of divine and human elements in the process of inspiration (and the compositon of the bible) The Spirit guides the thoughts of the authors
4) Verbal theory
States that the Holy Spirit influences beyond the direction of thoughts to the extent that the very words written by the authors is what the Spirit wanted written.
5) Dictation theory:
States that God basically dictated word for word, concept for concept the Bible to the authors.
These are the concept of INERRANCY:
1) Absolute inerrancy:
States that the Bible is fully true in ALL aspects, which includes detailed scientific and historical matters. Does NOT allow for phenomenological language or anything like that.
2) Full inerrancy:
States that the Bible is completely true in all of its assertions of truth, but DOES allow for phenomenological interpretation.
3) Limited inerrancy:
States that the Bible is infallible in all areas in theological and salvific doctrinal references.
4) Inerrancy of Purpose:
States that the Bible infallibly accomplishes its main purpose, to witness to Christ and save people.
5) Accomodated revelation:
Bible is revelation but is completely a human work. Everything could very well be wrong. No guarantees.
6) Nonpropositional revelation:
The Bible, in and of itself, is NOT revelation per se. Revelation occurs in the I-Thou encounter that occurs when one reads the Bible (Check Barth)
I have some other name-dropping books for the various espousers of these views if you deem it necessary...but let's do that only if necessary, ok?
*******************************
GDG asked:
"2) What claims does Scripture make for itself?"
Mephi:
LOL This is EXACTLY what I want to address...just a soon as I get some more of that info that I asked for, earlier. Keep it tight. We're getting there...
Peace out,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/15/00 1:07 AM
As per your request...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, thanks for categories, I will make use of them as I argue for a position...
As you graciously noted, I was not intent on precision as much as discovering what the common "jargon" for "Bible talk" is around here. Some of the definitions overlapped significantly and I too agreed with more than one. So as you said, those descriptions worked for my purposes. Eventually though, it is needful to gain clarity on what sort of authority the Bible is to have, especially as we protestants (most of us, I assume) often claim sola scriptura, or something like it.
Before I make my case, I need to deal with a related issue that may not seem immediately relevant but I believe that it is, so please be patient:
1. I reject deism because it lacks a sufficiently relational conception of the God-world relation. [in other words I reject "naturalism" and the clockmaker (God) - clock (world) anaolgy]
2. I reject "supernaturalism" because it lacks what seems to me to be the obvious recognition that God would anticipate God's own relation to creation. That relation (God-world) would be exemplary of the divine order rather than opposed to it. Note, this does not mean that I reject what is often CALLED "supernatural."
3. I speak of a relational or holistic model of the God-world relation in which God's presence, activity and intention are constitutive of creation rather than opposed to it. This is based upon a robust conception of the Spirit as the sustainer of all things and the classical doctrine of creatio continua.
I say all of this because I want you to understand why I reject some of the following positions and move to others, more to follow...
Here goes:
(the categories that follow are found first in Mephi's note above, I will comment at the end of each list.)
Mephi's work:
These are the theories of INSPIRATION:
1) Intuition theory: States that the biblical authors only had a high degree of spiritual insight. It's like a natural gift or something. In this right, the biblical authors could not be distinguished from any other person perceived to have spiritual acumen, like Siddhartha or Socrates or whatever
2) Illumination theory: States that the Holy Spirit did act upon the biblical authors but only to heighten their normal powers of intuition and spiritual perception.
3) Dynamic theory: States that there is a combination of divine and human elements in the process of inspiration (and the compositon of the bible) The Spirit guides the thoughts of the authors
4) Verbal theory States that the Holy Spirit influences beyond the direction of thoughts to the extent that the very words written by the authors is what the Spirit wanted written.
5) Dictation theory: States that God basically dictated word for word, concept for concept the Bible to the authors.
Modes:
Dynamic (3.) has potential, but I could go no further without compromising the integrity of the biblical authors' ability to claim authorship themselves as they so often and readily do. Dynamic actually reads as weaker to me than Illumination but I guess that depends upon the strength of the phrase "the Holy Spirit did act upon." Both remain sufficiently ambiguous for the relationality to be maintained. 4 and 5 clearly violate my claim # 2 near the top. 1 violates my #3 at the top. So as I said, it depends upon further clarification between 2 and 3.
Mephi's work:
These are the concept of INERRANCY:
1) Absolute inerrancy: States that the Bible is fully true in ALL aspects, which includes detailed scientific and historical matters. Does NOT allow for phenomenological language or anything like that.
2) Full inerrancy: States that the Bible is completely true in all of its assertions of truth, but DOES allow for phenomenological interpretation.
3) Limited inerrancy: States that the Bible is infallible in all areas
in theological and salvific doctrinal references.
4) Inerrancy of Purpose: States that the Bible infallibly accomplishes its main purpose, to witness to Christ and save people.
5) Accomodated revelation: Bible is revelation but is completely a human work. Everything could very well be wrong. No guarantees.
6) Nonpropositional revelation: The Bible, in and of itself, is NOT revelation per se. Revelation occurs in the I-Thou encounter that occurs when one reads the Bible (Check Barth)
Modes:
If I were forced to use such a purely modern concept as "inerrancy" (by this I intend to implicate the concept as irrelevant to both the biblical context and to our own contemporary context), I would have to go with 4 (note to GDG: how's that for a subjunctive construction?). But the problem with even this view is that clearly the physical presence of the Bible in the world has not been sufficient to accomplish God's will for all to be saved (of course, this argument only works against others who affirm that God desires all to be saved). So this claim seems falsified by the innumerable souls which have been lost through out history.
Number 6 is precisely correct (note: the Bible IS revelatory but must be so in relation to a hearer of the Word in a context) because it is the only one which gets right the reality that the Bible is not the vehicle by which we are saved. We worship God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is the Word of God. The function of the Bible is critical and clear: the Bible bears witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. But we do not worship the Bible, it is not magical, nor is it inerrant (as any atheist worth her salt would be quick to demonstrate) in the tacit meaning of that word (to be completely without error of any sort, to me is what that word should mean).
One last thing, we need to recognize that we are among a very small minority throughout church history which did not recognize that there is a tremendously rich SURPLUS of meaning available in the texts of scripture. God uses the Bible in bountiful ways to speak to his children as God deems necessary. We make fools of ourselves when we suppose to have the one definitive final interpretation of some particular passage or other, as though we are the authors and this is not in fact GOD's tool to speak to whom God wills to address.
No doubt I will hear dissention, but lets take it one challenge at a time, I cannot sustain too much controversy at once. This is an important one, we should take our time and move carefully. Of course, I should say, I do not claim to represent all open theists in this stance.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/15/00 2:46 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the term "infallible" (correct me if I am mistaken, church historians!) was first used in describing the ability of the Pope to speak "ex cathedral" (from the the papal throne) and to have that statement recognized with the highest ecclesiastical authority (theoretically equal to that of Scripture). The term meant that the Pope would "not fail" to speak truthfully about that which has been believed by all Christians, in all places and at all times. It is a very powerful assertion of Catholic Orthodoxy and a radical claim for unity in the Body of Christ. As the Bible became subject to attacks from the likes of Strauss' "Life of Jesus" and Reimarus' "Concerning the Intention of Jesus and His Teaching," the word came to be associated with the Bible to protect it from historical critical inquiry which began to cease working with the assumption that the texts were to be treated differently than any other historical texts (a modern turn away from using a "special hermenuetic" for Scripture). The term "infallible," along with "inerrancy," was intended to reassert that priviledged status of some level of unquestionability was to be reserved for sacred Scripture.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/15/00 10:04 AM
RE: As per your request...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Modes,
Thanks for sharing that with us, man. I'd like to make some brief (HA!) comments, if you don't mind...
Modes said:
"1. I reject deism because it lacks a sufficiently relational conception of the God-world relation. [in other words I reject "naturalism" and the clockmaker (God) - clock (world) anaolgy]
2. I reject "supernaturalism" because it lacks what seems to me to be the obvious recognition that God would anticipate God's own relation to creation. That relation (God-world) would be exemplary of the divine order rather than opposed to it. Note, this does not mean that I reject what is often CALLED "supernatural."
Mephi:
This seems right out of J. A. T. Robinson's view in "Honest To God" He rejects naturalism on one hand and supernaturalism on the other almost JUST like you have here. I'm not saying that's where you got that view, by any means. I just personally found that interesting...
************************************
You said:
"3. I speak of a relational or holistic model of the God-world relation in which God's presence, activity and intention are constitutive of creation rather than opposed to it. This is based upon a robust conception of the Spirit as the sustainer of all things and the classical doctrine of creatio continua."
Mephi:
Now, on THIS, I want to spend some time. There is a book by James Fowler, a psychologist and Christian, called "Faithful Change: The Personal and Public Challenges of Postmodern Life" It's pretty much a sequel to his work "Stages of Faith" where he expounds upon a a theory and model of faith development that somewhat parallels that of other human development models. Anyways, he discusses this view called the "Praxis of God" To make a long story short, this theological view is based on the premise that God is seen in the activity of life-affirming paradigms that shape our interdependent, dynamic world. He also believe in creatio continua, as you call it. He is also strongly opposed to the more traditional views of God. One of the views of God that he says is dying is "the impassible, sovereign God of classical theism, with HIS omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence" as understood by classical theists. (Fowler 192) Fowler is big on God being a source of unconditional acceptance, who also primarily works through covenantal relationship with Creation. God is willing for us to be complete "co-laborers", as it were, with Him in his continuing creation and governmental process.
The more I think about your discussions and perspectives, the more I believe you sound almost just LIKE Fowler...in many respects. I find this interesting for two reasons. 1) I have read a lot of Fowler and I have a pretty good handle on his theological views and 2) I have been able to incorporate SOME of his thinking into my own theology. What this means to me is that, if I'm correct about the similarities between the two of you, I may be able to more thoroughly understand your position. To be sure, I don't want to arbitrarily stereotype you according to Fowler's belief. I want you to speak for yourself. But I do notice some striking similarities between you and possibly, that may mean that I will have some of the same issues with YOU as I do with Fowler. Let's move on...
***************************************
You said:
"Dynamic (3.) has potential, but I could go no further without compromising the integrity of the biblical authors' ability to claim authorship themselves as they so often and readily do. Dynamic actually reads as weaker to me than Illumination but I guess that depends upon the strength of the phrase "the Holy Spirit did act upon." Both remain sufficiently ambiguous for the relationality to be maintained. 4 and 5 clearly violate my claim # 2 near the top. 1 violates my #3 at the top. So as I said, it depends upon further clarification between 2 and 3.
Mephi:
I figured you'd probably pick the dynamic view. If one's theological presupposition is that supernaturalism is to be conceived as "the spiritual God-realm over and against the 'natural' realm", then the verbal plenary view would appear to be effectively the same as dictation. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the that very presupposition is accurate. I've noticed in many process and quasi-process theologians that it is presumed that the view of a sovereign God is tacitly incompatible with a dynamic, interdependent view of the universe. They lump the idea of a sovereign God with Newtonian physics, a Cartesian mind/body separatist dualism, and the Enlightenment-influenced search for the rational unity of reality to the veritable exclusion of recognizing it's plurality. I have to say that this is simply not the case. One can recognize dynamic processes in human history and interdependence of existence AND, at the same time, posit a God ACTIVELY sovereign over all those processes. With this in mind, the verbal plenary view should not discounted, as being incompatible with your #3. The verbal plenary view doesn't necessitate a "God over and against nature" epistemological view. In my opinion, it fully recognizes the DEPTH of the convergence and integration of the spiritual and the corporeal realms. We should not be surprised at this. GOD became MAN in Jesus, the Christ. If this doesn't dispel the conflictive view of reality, I don't know what else can! If we look how the Church views the Incarnation and nature of Christ, we can take somewhat the same view to how human agency AND divine sovereignty can coincide and not conflict in human history.
**************************************************
Modes said:
"If I were forced to use such a purely modern concept as "inerrancy" (by this I intend to implicate the concept as irrelevant to both the biblical context and to our own contemporary context), I would have to go with 4 (note to GDG: how's that for a subjunctive construction?). But the problem with even this view is that clearly the physical presence of the Bible in the world has not been sufficient to accomplish God's will for all to be saved (of course, this argument only works against others who affirm that God desires all to be saved). So this claim seems falsified by the innumerable souls which have been lost through out history."
Mephi:
Heh. I noticed the rib against modernism. You read a lot like Fowler. Anyways... Let me be the first to say this. I don't hold to biblical inerrancy qua inerrancy. (Gasp!) I hold to a moderated #2 where the Bible is fully inspired and reliable, to the respect that the Bible is FULLY the Word of God. (Views 3-6 cannot affirm this) Does it mean complete inerrancy as many people want to understand inerrancy. Nope. New Testament Scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, in his work, "The Living Jesus" obviously takes this view of Scripture, affriming that the Gospels are the Word of God that testify reliably to the life of Jesus. Some people believe that full inspiration necessarily entails full inerrancy, as their presuppositions dictate inerrancy to be. My man, Millard Erickson, does this. However, I completely disagree. I don't find the argument that persuasive. To me, some of the way that inerrantist describe inerrancy, it dies the death of a thousand qualifications, if you know what I mean. Like you, I do believe that, generally speaking, evangelicals use the doctrines of inerrancy more PRAGMATICALLY than anything else. It has been erected to build a type of fence of protected arguments around the Christian faith. (As you probably well know, some Reformed theologians are very good at this) Having said that, doctrines of inerrancy are not merely contrived for apologetic purposes. From the way the biblical authors speak of the Old Testament, it appears THEY believed the Old Testament in its entirety to be the Word of God...and NOT in an existential experiential fashion. To me, the only way to reconcile the biblical authors OWN concept of God's revelation with the doctrine of a verbal view is #2. It is my perspective that we should give MUCH more attention to the views of the biblical authors than we are doing now, in constructing our bibliologies.
*******************************************
Modes said:
"Number 6 is precisely correct (note: the Bible IS revelatory but must be so in relation to a hearer of the Word in a context) because it is the only one which gets right the reality that the Bible is not the vehicle by which we are saved. We worship God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is the Word of God. The function of the Bible is critical and clear: the Bible bears witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. But we do not worship the Bible, it is not magical, nor is it inerrant (as any atheist worth her salt would be quick to demonstrate) in the tacit meaning of that word (to be completely without error of any sort, to me is what that word should mean)."
Mephi:
I applaud your view (Barthian, obviously) as far as recognizing the tendency of some Christians towards bibliolatry. Some people plain WORSHIP the Bible instead of God. But we see this isn't new at all. We easily see how many of the religious leaders of Jesus' day practically worshipped the Law, to the exclusion of its true principles and, in doing so, ended up rejecting God Himself. I also applaud your view's recognition of the existential encounter that Christ has with people through the Bible. This is often underemphasized, unfortunately. The Christian faith is ultimately mystical, whether or not Christians want to admit it. We have an experience with the Risen Christ via the Holy Spirit. "The Living Jesus" is a great book to read on this. I contend that, many times, the very reason that we put such faith in the Bible is because of our existential encounter with Christ, which was facilitated by the Scriptures.
HOWEVER....this view of Scripture basically undercuts the need to refer to the Scriptures as the God's Word. The Scriptures would be nothing more accounts that God CAN USE to facilitate his existential encounter with a person. Taken to its logical conclusion, if equating something God can use to facilitate an existential encounter qualifies something as God's Word, then almost ANYTHING could be God's Word. Basically, God revelation is THROUGH historical events. But as we note, this separates the existential encounter completely from the historical event. This is not the way I see Scripture portraying God's revelation. I see it as being God's self-revelations AS historical events. To be sure, I am not saying that God cannot use various means to tug on people's hearts. God can use anything in that regard. But we must not confuse biblical revelation with the wooing nature of the Holy Spirit. The Bible, in my view, is God's self-revelation in the form of revealed words that interpret historical deeds and personal experiences that is further attested by the Holy Spirit. Truth is personal AND propositional. Not every historical event could be seen as God's revelatory action per se. Moreover, if we look, again, to the New Testament biblical authors, it seems that THEY understood Scripture in the terms that I've mentioned. The written accounts by people who interpreted historical acts as divine revelation was seen by later believing authors as God's revelation in itself. As a matter of fact, that's why WE take exegesis so seriously as evangelicals. We believe that we must "rightly divide the word of Truth" simply because we believe that the Bible is God's Word.
****************************************
Modes said:
"One last thing, we need to recognize that we are among a very small minority throughout church history which did not recognize that there is a tremendously rich SURPLUS of meaning available in the texts of scripture. God uses the Bible in bountiful ways to speak to his children as God deems necessary. We make fools of ourselves when we suppose to have the one definitive final interpretation of some particular passage or other, as though we are the authors and this is not in fact GOD's tool to speak to whom God wills to address"
Mephi:
Again, I notice your emphasis on the DYNAMIC nature of how God can use Scripture. That's all fine, well, and good. It needs to be emphasized more. However, we must be careful. Some people take this type of thinking to near-Gnostic levels where, with Midrashic zeal and intent, they negate all decent forms of hermeneutical approaches so they can "hear what the Spirit is REALLY saying to them." Even some of the televangelists, who, unfortunately, often use the Bible like a book of incantations take an atomistic approach to Scripture, using the brilliant phrase "The Spirit showed me what this REALLY means for us today." [Note: I'm not knocking all televangelists, but, I assure you, what I say is true] Bottom line: a view of Scripture grounded, but not mired, in historical events is necessary for a healthy view of the Christian faith, in my view.
SUMMING UP:
I hear where you are coming from, and I believe that I have a pretty clear conception of how your bibliology has emerged. I must say that, even though I understand your view, I am quite opposed to it. I don't think that your founding presuppositions are entirely accurate, and I don't think that your bibliology really does justice to what the Bible says about itself. Of course, this is nothing personal against YOU, my friend. This is just a difference of opinion, and though I stand firm in my disagreement with your bibliology, I also stand just as firmly with you in wishing to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ, Ruler of Heaven and Earth as brothers.
Peace,
Mephi2K
P.S.: Ok, Doc. Your turn...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/15/00 11:53 AM
RE: RE: As per your request...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, you wrote WAY too much for me to be able to do the old cut and paste and respond deal. I will have to work up a fresh post that integrates your concerns, look for this in the near future...
BTW I have not read any of the works you speak of, with the exception of Erickson, so you may have a sense for where I stand but my sources are not the ones you guessed. J. A. T. Robinson and Fowler are news to me.
On my way out the door... please understand, I once held to views more like the ones you describe, but I have since found them to be intellectually dishonest (unwittingly, of course, you seem to think they work) attempts to immunize my sacred beliefs, more on this in that later post...
Thanks for closing with affirmation of brotherhood, that means a lot and is rare under the circumstances...I truly beleive we have much more in common than between us...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/15/00 8:26 PM
RE: RE: As per your request...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes, Mephi:
This is fascinating! I don't have time to participate in this thread (maybe later this weekend?), but I've been watching it. Mephi, thanks for laying out all the terms--I agree that the distinction between inerrancy and inspiration is important. The history part of the quesion is kind of key to me because otherwise people tend to mistake their perspective for "the way it always has been and the way it always will be," know what I mean?
Modes, wow, I never heard of a view like yours--very interesting and provocative. I appreciate the challenge to my comfort zone and I'm looking forward to hearing more from you.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/11/01 11:36 PM
RE: Poll Question: Biblical Authority-what's it mean? Complete this thought. The Bible [is]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought I'd drag this old poll up for the sake of the recent question on inerrancy. See Meph' post below for good stuff on that issue. Maybe people would like a chance to revisit this issue and/or vote.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:53 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|