Yesterday I introduced "Winston Smith" to you all. It's a pseudonym of course for a good buddy of mine. You can read the intro HERE. (& I even have a pic of him today like I promised yesterday.) I will also say that "Winston" is one of the smartest dudes I know... and he writes like it, so there is a certain level of HIGHER speech in this blog post than are in most of the ones you might read by me. A lot of you might love this and find it a welcomed break from my usual writing style. Below is what he has written and I hope you will enjoy it. These are his thoughts he's laying open for us. [emphasis is mine] Read them and interact with them in the comments section.
Dear reader,
My intent over the summer has been to better understand the nature of the Bible and to process my understanding on “paper.” I have done this by reading much and conversing much (with myself and my dad who happens to be a pastor) and praying much. Below is a snippet from my processing. I admit that my views of all things are finite and are set in a “hermeneutical spiral”: a dialectical continuous process where movement of understanding is from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. I do not claim perfect understanding, as I am prone to error, misinterpretation, and finitude. So take what I have written for what it is worth, and any insight you might offer is welcomed; even if you want to call me a hellish child I would be grateful because then at least I will know that I am on the right track.
Here I begin:
I confess with the body of faithful witnesses in the now-times and in past-times that the Scriptures are true, that is, they are trustworthy and authoritative. They will not lead the seeker-of-truth into error because the Scriptures, I believe, are infallible. They are infallible in such a way that the intention and teaching of the biblical authors and editors does not lead one into theological untruth or falsehood, but rather into the way of true life and the true knowledge of the Son of God by the Spirit who gives birth to the regenerative man. So also I confess the Scriptures are divine and human. They are divine because the Spirit of God who, carrying out the will of the Father, administered his all-encompassing supervision over the text so that the witness in the pages are trustworthy testimony to God the Truth. It is this reality that encompasses and energizes the life of all faith and life of all that truly exists.
For the reason that the Bible is also a human book, that is, it has the stamp of humanness on each page, I cannot accept that the Scriptures are an exact replication of the mind of God to the degree that everything the Scriptures teach is without need of judicious interpretation and wise discernment with what has been revealed in the past. God has accommodated himself to the fallible and finite languages, and thus minds of humanity. I, nor anyone else, can say that everything revealed in ancient Scripture is fully and completely understood (even understandable) as to its historicity, namely its precision, actuality, and factuality of past events such as Jonah and the whale. The possibility of the truth of the events recorded in the book of Jonah is valid (assuming your view of nature is not a sort of natural determinism) and must be considered, but the study of ancient literature and its techniques to convey truth in “untrue” stories and human tendency to embellish past events must also be considered. Though, one must also consider the fact that either way the authority of text and the truth of the text do not change if the fulcrum of opinion swings to the non-historical end of its historical factuality and actuality. The motives for the opinion’s swing of the fulcrum must also be considered.
Because the Scriptures are also divine, to the believer and Holy Spirit-convicted hearer and doer of the word the texts are not simply “another-collection-of-religious-sayings” suspect to human doubt and skepticism, though one may in their heart look upon the text with suspicion. No, rather, the believer and Holy Spirit-convicted hearer and doer approaches the text while appropriating a spirit of humility and obedience and faith in the heart, eyes, and ears.
Those words of Scripture being written down by men and inspired by the Spirit of God are of a different kind. The difference, I believe, is that those responsible for penning the text were faithful not only in their place in history, but in their heavenly view of reality. They were faithful to God toward what they knew was real and true as revealed in their own movements of faith upheld by the graces of true faith flowing from the Spirit of God. The inspiration of the authors cannot mean (in my opinion) the authors volition and intellectual capacities were set aside so that the Holy Spirit could “write” the text without consideration of the personality, social conditioning, political and religious allegiances of the authors' places in the historic timetable. Only modern man with his drive for a sort of Cartesian knowledge seeks for certainty in facts, evidences, and data that the Biblical text is true in the sense that it is “precise” and “without error” in all matters to which it speaks, including historical and scientific knowledge.
Modern man rummages the fields of knowledge in this way: “If the Biblical text speaks to scientific scenarios (even indirectly or implicitly), and is found in error, such as a flat earth or a tri-tiered universe, then the entire corpus of texts must be unworthy of authority because it spoke erroneously of one of the most fundamental truths of the nature of the earth and the universe. Surely if the Scriptures are inspired and God knows everything, then God would know the earth was round and he would tell us so.” This is the irrational fruit of a skepticism produced by an unfortunate tree called rationalism. The only purpose this need for certain certitude appears (from my viewpoint) to be the need to remove the most precious component of religious belief, namely faith, and replace it with illusive notions of scientific and/or historic certainty. My intention is not to negate the positive abilities of biblical criticism or historicism, but to negate the modern assumptions that an ancient text (even if it is inspired) must speak to modern epistemological allegiances. Why do we think our rationalism and scientism and historicism must be the judge of eternal truth? The Holy Spirit is capable of employing the errant and finite minds of both author and interpreter of the text and to lead them from error into true testimony about the Creating-Loving-Redeeming-Retributive God. God accommodates our finitude and fallibility.
Here I end.
There is more. Hope you learned something and gained a better perspective of what it means to trust the authority of the Bible.
What do you think about what "Winston" wrote about the Scriptures?
WHAT DO YOU AGREE WITH OR DISAGREE WITH?
Posts
16 comments:
You hellish child.
I appreciate the finely nuanced yet brief explanation of Scriptures infallibility, authority, and insperation/development. Statements like the "biblical authors and editors will not lead one into theological untruth or falsehood" go a long way in developing a robust and yet Evangelical understanding of Scripture, rather than the blanket and slightly misleading statement that Scripture is inerrant, with a giant period at the end of the sentence.
I believe this statement is a red herring. "Why do we think our rationalism and scientism and historicism must be the judge of eternal truth?" Rationalism, scientism and historicism do not judge eternal truth. Eternal Truth is eternal truth period. However, The heavens the declare the glory of God and the earth declares His handiwork. No one is... Read More without excuse regarding the knowledge of God simply because of the creation itself. God's ways are higher than ours but it should be no surprise that we see evidence of his handiwork when we study science. If God created us rational beings, why would we not believe every thing rational would point to the creator. If we believe the Gen. 1:1 is true...there is no reason to believe that science, reason should be inconsistent with the socalled inspired scriptures. There should be no stress believing archeology and history would validate that things happened as recorded in the Book.
Further, I think there is nothing more thrilling than seeing the hand of God in everything from science, philosophy, history, art, and just in my own children. Is faith important? Absolutely, but every thing we see bears the finger print of God. Every created thing shouts Glory to God. Even things that man perverts point to an amazing creator... Read More. I often think of the immensely talented musicians in the entertainment industry who crash and burn from drugs or other addiction. Even their giftedness reveals the Glory of God. It is heart breaking that they think they can share in that Glory however, it is never the less a reflection of God.
Interesting ideas well presented by a thinker who is not trapped in the present view. I would agree with his basic premise that inerrancy is relative. We have all come in contact with those who hold to inerrancy yet err significantly due to their willfull or accidental ignorance of hermeneutics, secular or divine. However, without an objective standard for faith and practice we are ultimately blind to reality, at least in part. Clearly, the scriptures must be understood within all of the various Hermeneutical Spiral(s) (great book), yet the specificity and clarity of the words in the originals are such that they demand more than a plea to the third member of the Godhead as its interpreter. The greatest work of the Spirit is to reveal the Word, and having clearly inspired the words necessitates inherent authority and, yes, even inerrancy. We unfortunately find ourselves immensely handicapped by a nearly infinite number of factors, including Winston's Hegelian dialectical reasoning and method to arrive at his conclusions. Syntheses in any number could never produce an element, which is his apparent desire as he searches for truth regarding error. The law of the excluded middle demands that scripture cannot at the same time be both truth and errant. I would simply challenge his belief in the Spirit as a means of understanding. The words must be inerrant themselves in order to convey truth. While this initially may seem to fall into his rationalism, I believe that the Scriptures are the perfect Mind of God, yet it requires the Mind of Christ to understand them and the Spirit of God to apply them and live them. Hence the main verb of the Gospel must be teach. One can and should come to a perfect understanding of the grammar and syntax, but ultimately it requires supernatural intervention to LIVE the truth. Without inerrancy there can be no truth, without truth there can be no faith. If the scriptures contain error, then they cannot produce truth. The error lies with us.
Im wondering what you guys (and anonymussy) think about this: the Bible is a theological book. it was not primarily written for history or science.
While i agree the Bible contains no theological error, there are places where scientific and historical facts are recounted for a theological purpose. where we see history and science in the text, we should be challenged to look for theological truth and not demand that in every case the bible is historically or scientifically accurate. examples might be geneologies (as in Christ's, where people are skipped), creation accounts (there are 3 that differ, i think), renown of certain Kings (Ahab was nothing compared to his father's renown in secular history, however in the biblical narrative he is given much more attention), and more.
the human authors of scriptures are writing a theological work primarily, and not a historical or scientific work. and in those places where history or science do not agree with the text i might agree with anonymous and say their motives should be considered and in most cases, the motive is to portray some theological truth and not simply to lay out for us a historical or scientific fact.
sorry Joshua, the earth is not the center of the universe... sorry moses, the waters above are prolly just ocean-blue skies...
i know im pushing it here, but im hoping this is a safe place to toss these things out there for discussion.
this is definitely "a safe place to toss things out there for discussion"!!!
I am intrigued by the Joshua "Earth center of universe" reference and Moses "waters above" discussion. I have never heard anyone question that. Does that mean that you could also believe that the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days? No one was there to record the event in Hi Def except God of course...
musicman - yeah, exactly... the days of creation maybe weren't 24 hour literal days. most people would say they definitely were not.
The original readers wouldn't even wonder about that. That's not even what the authors intended to talk about... only us peeps stuck in modernity would even think to ask "now, were those 24 hour days."
it really doesn't matter does it? I think the point of the narrative is that God made it & it was good.
& I think that is a little of what "Winston" & even Hassanpour's comment were trying to say = the authors were talking about something BIG & we drag it down to silly little conversations.
Great comment though. I love this discussion. Hopefully I'll have more time later to go back and comment on some of the earlier comments... this is good dialogue
Yes this is good dialogue. I think perhaps I was misunderstanding the direction you were coming from. I don't know most of the big words you theologians use...small words are good for me unless they come with definitions. I think I get what you are saying though. I think you are saying don't miss the forest for the trees. I am still a little puzzled at perception of reaction against science in particular showing forth God's handiwork. Thats probably not the point but...
I am still struggling with the philosophical or theological basis for thinking that facts of history and science would not be accurate if the Bible truly was verbally inspired in the original language..or is that even in question here? I get that the Book is not about science of history and any reference is contextual in nature. But where does this questioning of literalism come from and where does it end? I am just asking.
its not so much that we might miss the forest for the trees that causes me concern, its statements like ones that are being made in comments above that suggest that if there are any errors/inaccuracies AT ALL, then the whole book is trash. that might be true theologically, but to say that not only does the Bible speak 100% accurately about God, it also is an authoritative text on history and science troubles me.
for some, the same presuppositions guiding the discussion on inerrancy are guiding (my former view on) the discussion on preservation of the text. "its all or nothing" or the law of middle fingers excluded (or is it excluded middle... im not good with big words either musicman)i think its a difficult way to handle the text at best, and unreasonable to our opposition.
God hasnt perfectly preserved the Biblical manuscripts in one perfect line of perfect manuscripts that trace back to the original perfect ones. i might also argue that God hasnt superimposed undiscovered scientific data or unknown historical data upon human authors who may not have known what we know now and were writing from their own limited perspective... so once again, sorry Joshua and Moses and others. and sorry end-time guys, Revelation has a theological message for us and is not primarily a time table for historical events (future of course) i had to throw that in there :-)
looks like ur off the hook, Winston. i might actually be the hellish child here
In the interest of full disclosure, Bob Sweet = Musicman. So the fear really is that since there are errors in the manuscripts we have today and because of that we don't want people basing their faith in the Bible on the science or history recorded in scripture? I am interested in what these errors are or how we know there are errors between the original manuscripts which we do not have and the latest manuscripts. There is more to this story. Gimme the cliff notes....or bible translation for dummies....
not really what i was trying to say... but i wrote fast, so its prolly not clear. sorry sweetmusic. someone else is gonna have to chime in here with cliff notes. maybe winston can post some anonymous comments and clarify for us :-)
Bob/musicman - Maybe my point is a red herring, but it's legitimate since the "scientific" community will also, by way of red herring (just watch the History Channel), to discredit the authority of scripture based upon its precritical, prescientific, and prehistorical view of the world. I am not saying rational thinking is wrong. I use it every day. I am saying we should be careful to place all of our "eggs" in the baskets of rationalism = scientific method, historicism, and supposed objective empiricism. (Here I recommend Ed Farley in "The Fragility of Knowledge.") My point is truth is beyond simply testing of rational minds. Where are the "errors" you ask? Read God's Word in Human Words to get a sampling of difficult issues. I am not saying the book is 100% right, but I think it raises good and necessarily honest questions. Finally, the issue is that we as a Christian church need to move our thirst for certainty of faith built on the certainty of the text back to the certainty of faith because of the certainty of Christ which happens to be recorded in the bible. We can do that when we understand that God accommodates to human weakness, imperfection, and failure. It's a reversal of roles. I hope that's somewhat clear.
Kris - I'm on board with you, but I might say things in a bit less dogmatic way.
Summary:
The issue is not so much 100% certainty of historical factuality or science; no, the issue is my final statement: "The Holy Spirit is capable of employing the errant and finite minds of both author and interpreter of the text and to lead them from error into true testimony about the Creating-Loving-Redeeming-Retributive God. God accommodates our finitude and fallibility."
Thanks for sharing your views. I have enjoyed the insight and I am sure it will color my thinking as I read the Book in years to come.
anonymous, ur right. my sarcasm isnt as funny when i write... sounds dogmatic, which sucks. point well taken.
most of your statements are well-thought and articulated. ill probably carry them with me as i think through this issue further. i like ur gospel summary btw the "Creating-Loving-Redeeming-Retributive God". as Piper suggests, God is the gospel, and as i suggested in recent posts on Renown ;-) the gospel starts at creation and ends in restoration or as you put it retribution. good stuff, thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment