Post Edited (TGB) : 1/18/2005 10:38:17 AM (GMT-6)

Mephi: No doubt, the Spirit of God had something to do with producing this uniqueness...insofar as the Spirit inspired the biblical authors (in whatever way) to testify to God they understood. But there is no reason to say that the activity of the Spirit involved in this process is ONLY unique to the Bible.

Tom: To what other literary work would you attribute the same “God-breathed”-ness?

Mephi: On what grounds could someone state that, especially if one believes in the idea of progressive revelation?

Tom: Easy. There’s no reason to think that a uniquely “God-breathed” OT message has to be the last word on the matter ‘for ever’. Unique inspiration CAN accommodate progressive revelation. It’s progressive “revelation,” not progressive “inspiration.” God reveals truth in progressive stages. That’s cool. But each stage is a trustworthy and authoritative revelation ‘given its place in time’. That’s why we are under no obligation to offer blood sacrifice today. But it wouldn’t mean that those portions of the OT text dealing with blood sacrifice are less “inspired” than Romans 3.

Mephi: What I'm saying, in other words, is that the Spiritual ‘activity’ in inspiration may NOT be unique, while the ‘participants’ and ‘outcomes’ of that inspiration may be unique. What biblical or theological argument could one use to justify saying that the Spiritual process of inspiration MUST be unique ONLY to biblical writings?

Tom: Well, there’s no possible way we can know whether or not whatever activity of the Spirit was involved in producing the Bible is also historically unique. All we have is a historically unique and uniquely authoritative ‘document’. Given this, there’s good reason to believe the divine activity involved in producing scripture was historically unique, but it doesn’t really matter. If you wish to make the claim that the same inspiration has produced a message “over here” in such-and-such a book, we could not attribute the same ‘authority’ to it. So I don’t think there’s anything to be proved by arguing that the divine activity involved in producing the Bible was not historically unique.

Mephi: The reason why I dealt with the idea of "preservation" is because, with many conservative evangelicals, the concept of inspiration essentially involves God's working to preserve the revelatory message as well as initiate it.

Tom: That’s new to me. I’ve never heard an inerrantist argue that the choices of church councils which settled on the canon were as inspired as the text of scripture. The doctrine of inspiration applies to the text of the Bible alone (not its transmission) and even then only to the autographs. Now THIS has huge implications for inerrancy, but that’s a different issue.

Mephi: Let's talk about authority. Authority deals with that right to command/order action or belief, right?...

Tom: Sounds good.

Mephi: …Now, most evangelical Christians would most likely say that it is God who ultimately has the authority...but that authority is conferred through means of the Word (biblical text) and the Spirit (illumining the text). And from a more "objective" point of view, this would be true (if what we are believing is true) But here's the deal. WHERE is this worldview held consistently and affirmed in life? That's right. The community of faith...and one's participation in that community. It is the community of faith that lays out and validates the socio-linguistic "boundaries."

Tom: It’s not an easy issue to balance to be sure, but the way I work this out for myself is like this: So long as the community of faith I’m committed to affirms what “I” believe the scriptures actually teach, I can continue to enjoy their fellowship. And even where the differences of opinion between me and my community are minor, I can submit to them (and often do). I have to admit that on some issues that admit plausible interpretations, I could be wrong. But if our differences regard ‘fundamental’ issues (the meaning of faith, the nature of salvation, etc.) then an individual believer would have no choice but to follow her conscience. Luther was right, never ever go against conscience. Of course, the community that excommunicates me would (in its view) be doing the same (as they ought). But “I” can do no other (as I ought).

Mephi: This way, it is [] possible that there be historical occurances that have been exaggerated (creative historiography) are the means by which God has chosen to reveal Godself.

Tom: Show me how this is done. An event is exaggerated and God is revealed IN the exaggeration?

Mephi: What if, instead of a dramatic splitting of the Red Sea where literally thousands upon thousands of people walked across on DRY land, having totally plundered the Egyptians after the slaying of ALL the firstborn of the Egyptians...there was actually a peasant uprising of possibly hundreds that occurred in a marshy swampland of reeds where the servant people defeated the Egyptian oppressers?

Tom: What historical reasons do you have for entertaining such an interpretation of the text? I’m not saying it has to be the way “The Ten Commandments” portrays it with Charlton Heston, but a few hundred peasants revolting and, unarmed, slaying trained soldiers in a swamp? If you’re gonna believe in the miraculous, Mephi, why not make it that described in the text?

Mephi: Just saying "what if" now. God may still use the interpretions of these authors to convey some divine truth about who God is.

Tom: For example?

Mephi: I never said that there were NO historical events grounding any biblical testimony...nor would I say that.

Tom: My bad. I was struggling to see the value of history in your faith. But while we’re on it, why WOULDN’T you say it? I mean, supposing there WAS no Exodus (not even a few hundred revolutionaries in a swamp), what would the consequences be for you?

Mephi: I would argue that even IF there was no miraculous crossing of the RED Sea…one can still that in the liberation of the Hebrew(?) people, they saw the delivering hand of God.

Tom: If here “was no miraculous crossing” then where would they have seen the “delivering hand of God”? You and I have the luxury of saying God does something ‘new’ in the “text.” But those crossing the sea had no text. They just had the sea. It’s the sea they’re interpreting, not a text. Now, if YOU know that there was ‘nothing miraculous’ in the event itself, then pray tell (‘cause I don’t get it) how do you see divine revelation in the event for those who experienced it? You see a historical “kernel,” yes, but where’s the historical basis for the interpretation of the event if the kernel is not a “miraculous” event? There is none.

Now, it’s OK to take what OTHERS see as a very ordinary historical event and interpret it differently (and seeing God in it). Take the crucifixion no less. “Jesus died” is simply history. “Jesus died for the world” is more than simply history. It's theology. But it's not SIMPLY theology. It's both. If Jesus didn’t really die historically, then he didn’t die theologically either. THIS is what I think is going on in scripture. So yes, the authors are interpreting history, but their interpretation (since “God-breathed”) IS history. It may be a statement of faith, yes, but “Jesus died for the world” is what we believe historically happened. So I’d apply this to the Exodus (and other similar events). If the Exodus was historically different in ways the text doesn’t mention, they’re insignificant and compatible with the God-breathed interpretation of the event given by the text. But if the Exodus was not, or if it was significantly different than the historical picture described in scripture, then I have problems. So it may be require faith to say so, but what I say is, “God miraculously delivered a nation through the Sea and judged Pharaoh’s army therein (whatever its depth—more a miracle if it was just a swamp!).

Mephi: But besides that...are you saying that truth can't be conveyed in non-historical ways.

Tom: Right. The revelation of truth IS a historical event. So history is always important. There’s no ahistorical revelation. But if you mean “Can God reveal truth in a story that’s NOT historical,” then yeah, sure. That happens in scripture. The parables don't relay historical events, for example, but they do communicate truth. But it seems obvious that there’s a difference between a text that tells a parable to illustrate a truth about God and a text that purports to tell a historical story in which God acted in history and which "act" can reveal God to us the way it revealed God to them.

This is why I’m not seeing where history is important to your view of scripture. If a parable can relate truth about God (and it can), then why can’t the ENTIRE Bible be one big parable (Exodus, Conquest, miracles, resurrection, etc., the whole bit)? I’ll understand your view better if you can tell me what reasons you have for believing Christ’s resurrection, for example, cannot be ahistorical.

Mephi: All I'm suggesting is that we subject ALL of this stuff to critical examination (all the while understanding the limits of historiography and all). As I said before, I think that the general plausibility of the Jesus accounts is definitely on more solid grounds than something like Esther.

Tom: What historical evidence do you have for doubting the story of Esther? Is it too miraculous? Too unlikely? No explicit extra-biblical evidence confirming its historicity? If the point was to exaggerate history and inject God in it to bolster Israel's faith, wouldn't it be easy for contemporaries to discredit its claims? And wouldn't those Jews familiar with the real facts have a hard time appropriating what they knew wasn't true to build their faith? That's my problem. See, we don't seem to be capable (as human beings) to appropriate as food for our faith claims about God acting in history without actually believing the history is true. How does one appropriate "God stepped into history and delivered a nation from Egypt" if one also knows for that the facts were there were only a few hundred peasants and there was nothing miraculous about their escape? How does one DO faith like that?

Gotta run.
Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/26/2005 9:53:31 AM (GMT-6)