I just began reading Christian Smith’s new book, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Smith’s point is to demonstrate that biblicism is wrong and self-defeating, and collapses under the weight of its own claims. What immediately struck me was how broadly Smith defines biblicism; one is a biblicist if he accepts one or more of the following ten propositions:
1. Divine Writing: The Bible is identical to God’s very words
2. Total Representation: The Bible is the total representation of God’s will for humanity
3.Complete Coverage: The Bible covers every topic you need to know about anything
4. Democratic Perspicuity: Almost anybody can read the Bible and grasp its message
5. Common Sense Hermeneutic: The Bible should be interpreted literally
6. Solo Scriptura: “Just me and my Bible”
7. Internal Harmony- Everything in the Bible fits together consistently
8. Universal Applicability: Everything in Scripture is true for all times and places
9. Inductive Method: The preferable method for understanding the Bible
10. Handbook Model: The Bible is our guide for all things and our answer to all questions
As you can probably tell, Smith is setting his sights not only upon evangelicals (who generally fall prey to all ten criteria), but also upon the Reformed (who do not, but only adhere to roughly half of them). Smith ends his first chapter by putting forth this question:
"If the Bible is given by a truthful and omnipotent God as an internally consistent and perspicuous text precisely for the purpose of revealing to humans correct beliefs, practices, and morals, then why is it that the presumably sincere Christians to whom it has been given cannot read it and come to a common agreement about what it teaches?"
Since sincere Christians are “all over the map” about what the Bible teaches, Smith suggests that “the actual functional outcome of the biblicist view of Scripture belies biblicism’s theoretical claims about the Bible.” What Smith is saying, in other words, is that all the evangelicals’ claims about the perspicuity of the Bible are moot if evangelicals themselves cannot agree on what it is the Bible actually says.
We can get into more detail later about whether Smith is painting with too broad a brush, but to get some discussion going, my initial question for him is this:
Why can’t your argument about the Bible be pushed back a step and applied to God himself and his general revelation? If God is omnipotent and supposedly heartbroken over the fact that no one submits to him, why doesn’t he just provide sufficient evidence of his existence that everyone can see? And if you insist that he does, then my next question is why doesn’t everyone interpret that evidence correctly? And if your answer is that man is sinful and blinded, then my next question is why that explanation cannot suffice to explain man’s lack of consensus on what exactly special revelation is saying?
As you can probably tell, Smith is setting his sights not only upon evangelicals (who generally fall prey to all ten criteria), but also upon the Reformed (who do not, but only adhere to roughly half of them). Smith ends his first chapter by putting forth this question:
"If the Bible is given by a truthful and omnipotent God as an internally consistent and perspicuous text precisely for the purpose of revealing to humans correct beliefs, practices, and morals, then why is it that the presumably sincere Christians to whom it has been given cannot read it and come to a common agreement about what it teaches?"
Since sincere Christians are “all over the map” about what the Bible teaches, Smith suggests that “the actual functional outcome of the biblicist view of Scripture belies biblicism’s theoretical claims about the Bible.” What Smith is saying, in other words, is that all the evangelicals’ claims about the perspicuity of the Bible are moot if evangelicals themselves cannot agree on what it is the Bible actually says.
We can get into more detail later about whether Smith is painting with too broad a brush, but to get some discussion going, my initial question for him is this:
Why can’t your argument about the Bible be pushed back a step and applied to God himself and his general revelation? If God is omnipotent and supposedly heartbroken over the fact that no one submits to him, why doesn’t he just provide sufficient evidence of his existence that everyone can see? And if you insist that he does, then my next question is why doesn’t everyone interpret that evidence correctly? And if your answer is that man is sinful and blinded, then my next question is why that explanation cannot suffice to explain man’s lack of consensus on what exactly special revelation is saying?
In which case why set the boundaries of special revelation as being around the Bible?
ReplyDeleteAre comments closed on your older posts?
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeletePlease expand, I'm not sure I'm following you.
Burns,
No, why?
The way I put it in my book is a bit less strong: the ubiquitous conflicting interpretations _is strong evidence against_ the claim of perspicuity of the Bible made by Protestants.
ReplyDeleteI would say, we are trying to use our reason to help us discern the means by which God preserved His revelation to us. Catholics and Protestants both agree that the Bible [ignoring our differing Old Testaments] is an important part of that means. Protestants say sola Scriptura; Catholics say Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium of the Church.
Which of those is the true means? To evaluate that, we look at the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura and its accompanying doctrine of perspicuity. Then we see there is strong evidence against perspicuity, and that leads us to scrutinize whether sola Scriptura makes sense without perspicuity, whether that is compatible with who we believe God is (and that He wants us to know Him in truth).
Just some thoughts. This post kindled a blog post idea in my head last night that I will try to remember and post about.
Good afternoon Devin.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Then we see there is strong evidence against perspicuity"
Maybe your definition is different but here is what WCF 1.7 says, "7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be know, believed, and observed FOR SALVATION, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."
What things in the Bible which are to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are insufficient to understand without the help of tradition or magisterium of the church?
Dean B
The way I put it in my book is a bit less strong: the ubiquitous conflicting interpretations _is strong evidence against_ the claim of perspicuity of the Bible made by Protestants.
ReplyDeleteDevin, wouldn't it be better to say that the ubiquitous conflicting interpretations is strong evidence for the depth of human sin? I mean, I know I am Calvinist and everything, but your argument sure seems to pave a way to ding God's holy Word. Wouldn't it make more sense to pave a way to ding man?
But, interestingly, this whole line of argumentation is similar to how the Reformed theonomists reason: the world is really screwed up (insert favorite social or political example here), so general revelation is clearly unfit to govern general life, so let's just use special revelation where everything is crystal clear and will settle everything and the world will be whole again. But this imlplies that deficiency lies in God's general revelation when it in fact lies in human agency to interpret. It's just interesting to me how Catholics and theonomists seem to have this tendency to reason in ways that undermine revelation in common, the theonomists general revelation and the Catholics special.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteBecause your older posts are not allowing comments. ?
Notice also that WCF 1.7 points out the importance of "a due use of the ordinary means" as we seek to understand God's Word. According to the WSC (see especially questions 85, 88-90), these ordinary means are centered around the ministry of the visible church. The church is not an infallible interpreter of Scripture for the Reformed, but it does have an important role to play in biblical interpretation. It would seem to me that evangelicals would have a greater degree of interpretive unity if they had not adapted to American culture by democratizing and individualizing the Christian faith. By way of contrast, confessional Protestantism exhibits significant unity when it comes to "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" (WCF 1.7).
ReplyDeleteDevin,
ReplyDeletewe look at the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura and its accompanying doctrine of perspicuity. Then we see there is strong evidence against perspicuity, and that leads us to scrutinize whether sola Scriptura makes sense without perspicuity, whether that is compatible with who we believe God is (and that He wants us to know Him in truth).
One of my problems with Smith is how broadly he defines biblicism. I completely reject the version of perspicuity that many evangelicals espouse, but we usually all get lumped in together.
So I am fine with defining perspicuity really narrowly. When we do that, the "pervasive interpretive plurality" is really minimized. For example, almost all Christians believe that man is sinful, that God has acted on our behalf by his grace, and that through faith we can be saved (with good works being necessary in some sense). Sure, there are finer points over which we disagree, but if this is the basic message of the Bible, then there actually is quite a broad consensus about it (if not near unanimity).
Yes,
ReplyDeleteOld posts are not being aloud comments. At least the ones I've tried.
Hi guys,
ReplyDeleteNot a lot of time, but thanks for sharing your thoughts. Yeah, most Christians agree with Jason's minimal set of the broad strokes of sin/death/grace/salvation. Of course, once we scratch the surface there we get into a hundred disagreements, and then we disagree about whether each of those disagreements affects salvation or not, etc. etc.
Does the fault of wrong interpretation reside with fallen man? Sure, I can go for that. Even on our best days we are pretty dumb and limited in our understanding, not to mention inclined toward sin and rationalizing away our evil actions.
Which is why we need God:
1. To protect the sinful men who wrote the Bible over the centuries from introducing errors in the writings, via divine inspiration, and
2. To protect from error the sinful men who He ordained to lead His Church in their interpretations of the inspired word.
We both believe #1. We don't both believe #2 (or at the least we understand it in radically different ways).
God could have done #1 and not #2. An infallibly inspired text is better than a mere human one, however well-intentioned. I plan to write a blog post about this soon. But I think He did #1 and #2, knowing how darkened our intellects were, and how inclined toward sin.
Smith is highly critical of noted Evangelical scholars like D.A.Carson, Greg Beale and Vern Poythress but has high praise for the likes of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks- very revealing and predictible.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like all reformed people use a constantly changing eclectic biblical text. So it seems that the reformed community isn't actually adamant about any of these points are they? If every word of the NT is susceptible to being changed by a newly found manuscript or reevaluation of the authority of known manuscripts, how can any of these points be truly held more than in a barthian way, where we are only hovering above the text?
ReplyDeleteSo I am fine with defining perspicuity really narrowly. When we do that, the "pervasive interpretive plurality" is really minimized. For example, almost all Christians believe that man is sinful, that God has acted on our behalf by his grace, and that through faith we can be saved (with good works being necessary in some sense). Sure, there are finer points over which we disagree, but if this is the basic message of the Bible, then there actually is quite a broad consensus about it (if not near unanimity).
ReplyDeleteThis gets hard. Even when you try and assert basics like the resurrection of Jesus you have to exclude liberal Christians. But how do you do that? You can say they interpret scripture wrong. They do. But who has the right to say it is wrong and not just different? What makes you interpretive rule right and a Catholic interpretive rule wrong?
In practice it is precisely on the controversial doctrines where you need a solid foundation for you doctrine. When you define perspicuity really narrowly you have to admit scripture alone is not clear on abortion or gay marriage. Scripture interpreted properly is clear but "properly" needs to be defined in a way that does not just mean your personal preference. As soon as you go there you have contradicted biblicism. You have to add something to the bible.
Randy
ReplyDeleteI do not follow your assertion in the following sentence: "When you define perspicuity really narrowly you have to admit scripture alone is not clear on abortion or gay marriage."
Please clarify your thoughts a little more.
Dean B
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI thought this series of logical questions was excellent and thought-provoking:
Why can’t your argument about the Bible be pushed back a step and applied to God himself and his general revelation? If God is omnipotent and supposedly heartbroken over the fact that no one submits to him, why doesn’t he just provide sufficient evidence of his existence that everyone can see? And if you insist that he does, then my next question is why doesn’t everyone interpret that evidence correctly? And if your answer is that man is sinful and blinded, then my next question is why that explanation cannot suffice to explain man’s lack of consensus on what exactly special revelation is saying?
I think that is a fair question to raise to Christian Smith. The next question, I think, would come back to you: "IS that your actual claim? That those that disagree with your denomination are in error due to being sinful and blinded?" If not, then the series of logical deductions didn't get you anywhere. If so, then I think you have another intriguing question on your hands: "What can we point to that would explain why out of the generally sinful and blinded mass of Christians, your denomination should be the one that got it right?" I'm not claiming one would need to have a solid answer to that question to believe that one's denomination is indeed correct, but I think it's a very interesting question that ought to stick with one. For me personally, I'd want to be able to point to something tangible, maybe historical, that would help explain why the "founding fathers" of my theological distinctives were the ones that got it right.
Wyatt,
ReplyDeleteIt seems like all reformed people use a constantly changing eclectic biblical text. So it seems that the reformed community isn't actually adamant about any of these points are they? If every word of the NT is susceptible to being changed by a newly found manuscript or reevaluation of the authority of known manuscripts, how can any of these points be truly held more than in a barthian way, where we are only hovering above the text?
This seems like a pretty bizarre accusation to me. A “constantly changing biblical text”? I have only been a serious Christian for a couple decades, but I can’t remember a passage of the NT ever changing due to some newly-discovered manuscript.
Textual criticism allows us to ascertain with near-certainty the best reading or variant of a NT text, and all serious exegetes use it, or at least benefit by it.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteThis gets hard. Even when you try and assert basics like the resurrection of Jesus you have to exclude liberal Christians. But how do you do that? You can say they interpret scripture wrong. They do. But who has the right to say it is wrong and not just different? What makes you interpretive rule right and a Catholic interpretive rule wrong?
Well, my guess is that even a Catholic would say that the bare statement that “Jesus rose bodily from the dead” is something that can be affirmed without a Magisterium, and a denial of it can be recognized with a Magisterium as well. Sure, there will be interpretive differences if you stick a whole bunch of people in a room, but the text is pretty clear (clear enough to exclude liberals at least).
In practice it is precisely on the controversial doctrines where you need a solid foundation for you doctrine. When you define perspicuity really narrowly you have to admit scripture alone is not clear on abortion or gay marriage. Scripture interpreted properly is clear but "properly" needs to be defined in a way that does not just mean your personal preference. As soon as you go there you have contradicted biblicism. You have to add something to the bible.
I hear Catholics make this claim all the time, but it just seems silly. The Bible is very clear that an unborn child is a person whom God has knit together, and the Bible is also clear that killing persons is wrong. Same with gay marriage—we don’t need a Magisterium to know it is wrong.
In other words, liberals are people who have moved away from or denied what Scripture says, not people whose novel interpretations are just as valid as ours.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe next question, I think, would come back to you: "IS that your actual claim? That those that disagree with your denomination are in error due to being sinful and blinded?" If not, then the series of logical deductions didn't get you anywhere. If so, then I think you have another intriguing question on your hands: "What can we point to that would explain why out of the generally sinful and blinded mass of Christians, your denomination should be the one that got it right?"
I think the way you’re framing the question is unfair, or at least it prejudices the case.
First, it is Smith and not me who is playing the pluralism card, thereby attributing to biblicists the claim that their little sect alone is right and everyone else is wrong (and you’re sort of echoing him). But if I were asked that question I would just say, “No one ever said that my denomination alone ‘got it right,’ because that assumes that there’s this thing called ‘it’ that is an all or nothing kind of thing that everyone outside my circle completely misunderstands. But that’s not true at all, my denomination agrees with hundreds of others on hundreds of things, and our disagreements at the end of the day are relatively minor.”
For me personally, I'd want to be able to point to something tangible, maybe historical, that would help explain why the "founding fathers" of my theological distinctives were the ones that got it right.
Well, there’s only so far someone like me can go down that road. But we would say that our general theological principles are consistent with what the church has always believed, and our more nuanced formulations, while more or less representative of the church’s views down through history, are solidly biblical and can stand up to scrutiny from Scripture.
I think that’s the best any of us can do.
Well, my guess is that even a Catholic would say that the bare statement that “Jesus rose bodily from the dead” is something that can be affirmed without a Magisterium, and a denial of it can be recognized with a Magisterium as well. Sure, there will be interpretive differences if you stick a whole bunch of people in a room, but the text is pretty clear (clear enough to exclude liberals at least).
ReplyDeleteAffirmed by whom? Me? Sure I affirmed it long before I became Catholic. But if I was in a debate with a liberal. I would need a way to show my method of interpreting scripture was better than his. That despite the impossibility of raising a dead person after 3 days we are intended to take the accounts literally. But I would have a hard time making his method seem impossible from only the evidence actually in scripture. So I would end up making some sort of appeal to tradition. Christians have always seen the resurrection as a key element of the faith. If I was not allowed to go there then the debate would end up with one guy says it is clearly in scripture and one guy says it is not. I might win the debate on points but I could not score a knockout. So nobody would leave thinking that non-resurrection Christianity was simply not an option. They might think it a bit less reasonable then my position but still a position some might take. Biblicism would simply be not enough to rule it out.
I hear Catholics make this claim all the time, but it just seems silly. The Bible is very clear that an unborn child is a person whom God has knit together, and the Bible is also clear that killing persons is wrong. Same with gay marriage—we don’t need a Magisterium to know it is wrong.
You don't need a magisterium. But what about a same-sex attracted person or a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy? Someone will tell them that Christian morality is strongly against abortion and gay marriage now but it will change. It changed on slavery. Morality progresses and eventually the churches fall into line. There are already many churches that have gone there.
How does a person facing a major life choice know God's will? I mean they really need to know because the moral choice looks pretty hard from their perspective. Just a pastor declaring scripture to be clear is not enough. Not in the face of whole denominations that declare this matter unclear.
I am not saying there is no answer. Even as a protestant I found my answer in solid Reformed institutions that seemed to make a lot of sense. Just me and my bible was not enough. But that is the point. Biblicism does not work. People always add something to scripture. Some community, some history, some scholarship. But if you are honest and admit you are adding something then it makes sense to ask what is the best thing to add.
In other words, liberals are people who have moved away from or denied what Scripture says, not people whose novel interpretations are just as valid as ours.
But why are they not just as valid? Why is a novel interpretation worse than an ancient one? Even that implies a rule of interpretation. Scriptures are sacred. A sacred thing cannot be used in any way we want. We need to respect it. We know that instinctively but not everyone does. Liberals are the exception that proves the rule. We would not know there was a rule if they didn't break it. But there is and it something other than scripture that we do need.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't intending to be unfair. I thought your line of reasoning was very interesting, but I perceived that unless it goes further (toward some tangible source of confidence that, in areas where disagreements persist, our denomination is the one that got it right), then all it really shows is that there will always be Christians in error, but there isn't a trustworthy way for us to know that our denomination is not among them.
In your reply to me, you flesh out the idea that the denominational differences are not as stark as all that. Fair enough. But in your response to Randy, you also distinguish between the viewpoints that "all interpretations are equal and valid" and "some move away from what Scripture says and are therefore wrong." I agree with that statement and find it a key (and useful) distinction. However, how do those two sides of the coin, if you will, work together? Yes, there are many agreements, but in the areas where there are disagreements, you don't seem shy about calling out errors where you see them. The liberals have no leg to stand on, you say, because the Bible is clear on the issues where they have fallen into error. But on the other hand, the variety of denominations isn't such a big deal, you say, because there is agreement on the essentials. This implicitly brings us back to perspicuity so my question is: how do you distinguish between cases where 1) others' errors are in areas where the Bible is perspicuous so we can conclude that they are clearly denying Scripture or 2) others' errors are in areas where the Bible isn't perspicuous and so we can't be certain they actually are in error, but we do our best? How do you know that you have drawn the correct boundaries around what is perspicuous and what isn't? Alternately, how do you know that you have correctly identified which disagreements are major and which are minor?
The fact is there is certainly precedence for respectable denominations changing once-earnestly-held doctrines over time. Is there a good way to know that the changes are due to better biblical understanding and not slow, erosive, capitulation to culture (which we agree we see on the liberal ends of the spectrum today)? Or is the answer just that we believe and trust that God will never allow our denomination to stray so far that the essentials are compromised? (Which would most likely lead to a shrinking understanding of what comprises the list of essentials over time, i.e. a smaller portion of Scripture believed to be perspicuous.) OR is the answer that, if He does, we trust that there will always be a more faithful denomination we can find and switch to?
I'm just curious to learn how you approach these sorts of questions.
Thanks,
Kevin
I do not follow your assertion in the following sentence: "When you define perspicuity really narrowly you have to admit scripture alone is not clear on abortion or gay marriage."
ReplyDeleteJason's narrow definition was designed to exclude the "pervasive interpretive plurality." You either make it narrow enough to exclude all the major controversies or you don't. Both present a problem. Either you declare scripture unclear on things like abortion and gay marriage or you declare some number of professing Christians to be missing the clear teaching of scripture. Jason seemed to be taking one option but in his follow up comment I am thinking he has gone the other way.
I agree that once you exclude people who disagree with you then the "pervasive interpretive plurality" problem goes away. But on what basis do you exclude them? Many of them seem quite reasonable if you discuss matters with them.
Subconsciously I had my dogmas long before I became Catholic. There were certain things that if someone denied them I felt they had left the faith. They were not Christian. I had no authority to declare that but I had a sense a line had been crossed. I drew the line differently than the Catholic church has drawn it but the idea that a line should exist seemed to make sense.
Good afternoon Randy.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Jason's narrow definition was designed to exclude the 'pervasive interpretive plurality.' You either make it narrow enough to exclude all the major controversies or you don't. Both present a problem. Either you declare scripture unclear on things like abortion and gay marriage or you declare some number of professing Christians to be missing the clear teaching of scripture."
I am willing to concede there is a danger; however, I do not believe abortion and gay marriage fall into this category. I think infant and adult baptism would be two relevant examples.
I do not know any credible professing Christian who believes the Bible is silent on the subject of abortion and gay marriage. However, one may honestly read his Bible and come to the conclusion that adult baptism is Biblical.
I believe Scripture alone is very clear on abortion and gay marriage. It is human depravity not His Word that is at fault in your two examples.
Dean B
In light of the instances when popes have changed their official pronouncements (e.g. Liberius with regard to Arianism; Zosimus with regard to Pelagianism), there would seem to be far more evidence against Rome’s claim to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture than there is against the doctrine of perspicuity. As far as I understand it, the RCC handles such problems by saying that the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, something which can only be determined by the pope himself. This, however, simply begs the question. As Herman Bavinck points out:
ReplyDelete“For the system requires that no one can tell whether the pope has spoken ex cathedra except the pope himself. And so a pope is always free to reject his own pronouncements or those of other popes by saying that they were not spoken ex cathedra, or to declare them binding by saying that they were. And later he can even say that he or one of his predecessors, thinking that he spoke ex cathedra, actually did not do so.” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, 401-2)
In other words, whenever it becomes evident that a pope has erred in one of his official statements, Rome claims that he and his successors have the authority to declare that the error was not official and, hence, does not disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility. If this is the case, then how can a Roman Catholic have certainty about anything that he believes? What is said today may very well be reversed at some point in the future. For example, Catholics of earlier days were taught that it is “altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature that he be subject to the Roman pontiff.” (Unum Sanctum) But how is that teaching not reversed by what is said here: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 847)?
I am willing to concede there is a danger; however, I do not believe abortion and gay marriage fall into this category. I think infant and adult baptism would be two relevant examples.
ReplyDeleteI do not know any credible professing Christian who believes the Bible is silent on the subject of abortion and gay marriage. However, one may honestly read his Bible and come to the conclusion that adult baptism is Biblical.
I believe Scripture alone is very clear on abortion and gay marriage. It is human depravity not His Word that is at fault in your two examples.
Dean, in light of my own point way above, I agree that when it comes to the larger question here the problem is human depravity and not Scripture. But I am baffled by your assertion that, while the Bible is clear on abortion and homosexual marriage (I presume you to mean morally clear, since the Bible is not merely unclear but utterly silent on the political questions surrounding these phenomena), it is just as unclear on baptismal sacramentology. I am not sure of your doctrinal commitments, but the Belgic Confession thinks the Bible is as clear on baptism is as it is on the sixth commandment. It is so clear that it is considered the second mark of the true church; in Article 34 it is considered clear enough to despise the error of the Anabaptists. This will irritate the prevailing sacramental latitudinarianism, but that means that the Reformed tradition does not know how any credible professing Christian can honestly read his Bible and reject infant baptism. So I think your point, good as it is, is somewhat lost on your example. Human depravity animates a reading of special revelation that concludes credo-baptism just as much as it does a reading of general revelation that concludes choice morality or sexual latitudinarianism.
P.S. Randy, I can’t resist. If pro-lifery is the measure, we don’t need a Magisterium, the Bible or even Christian faith to know that abortion is wrong. It’s revealed in nature. Ever heard of SecularProLife? But pro-lifery, both sacred and secular, seems based upon the notion of human rights, which is problematic for two reasons: first, that’s what choice politics is based on and so we are forced to decide between the application of two western ideals (life or liberty), but secondly human rights are something the Bible knows nothing of. Better to base an opposition to abortion on the sixth and second greatest commandments. Duty to others beats individual rights.
http://secularprolife.org/
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThere are differences between the UBS3 and UBS4, and between the NA26 and NA27. None of these eclectic texts represent a real known manuscript, but are a munge of many manuscripts. Who's to say they are getting closer for certain? And every edition is different, so even with minor changes of words demonstrates there is no certain biblical text. It would be different if we were to say aleph was our purest manuscript, but there is no physical na27 with which the ESV is based on that ever existed. So in a sense we may be getting closer to the original, but at the same time, its a bunch of scholars voting on texts subjectively, with the worst example being the colored beads of the jesus seminar showing how that process can be abused. From what I've read, scholars are frustrated when their selection for the best text choices are over ruled by a majority vote. Also, how do we know for certain a manuscript is really as old as we think? So with every new edition, we invent scripture, so how can we ever talk about it as if the autographs were ever accessible to anyone? As soon as the manuscripts were penned and handed off to a courier, did inspiration end? And is biblicalism no more than golden places from heaven? interesting questions, that lots of people are asking, especially the catholics who are saying "not by scripture alone" as was reviewed on greenbaggins
Good morning Zrim.
ReplyDelete"It is so clear that it is considered the second mark of the true church; in Article 34 it is considered clear enough to despise the error of the Anabaptists. This will irritate the prevailing sacramental latitudinarianism, but that means that the Reformed tradition does not know how any credible professing Christian can honestly read his Bible and reject infant baptism."
Thank you for your critique.
My purpose was merely to highlight an area where honest professing Christians come to an area of disagreement.
Perhaps I suffer from too much sacremental latitudinarianism, but I understand how a professing Christian is able build a biblical case for adult baptism. I believe they are able to build a biblical case in a much more honest way than someone who sees the framework hypothesis rather than 6/24 taught in Genesis 1.
I guess one could ask which error I detest more? Both undermine the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, but are either a matter which are to be believed for salvation?
Dean B
Dean, but isn’t it true that honest professing Christians also come to a disagreement over justification? So I could say that I also understand how a professing Christian is able to build a biblical case against sola fide (first mark), just as much as I can see how one can do so against paedobaptism (second mark). But with the Reformed tradition, I confess that the Bible is clear that faith plus works and credo-baptism are errors. And not just negligible errors, but errors so significant that they that cause a needful division. And as far as the third mark concerning the exercise of discipline, I can also see how an honest person can build a case affirming his personal homosexual practice as well as one affirming her personal reproductive rights. But I confess that the Bible clearly opposes these practices. The upshot is that I would affirm a needful division from those who deny sola fide, paedobaptism or practice homosexuality and elective abortion.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree with your point that human depravity explains bad reading of the Bible. But to up the ante, I also think the Bible is just as clear sacramentally as it is morally.
Zrim
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "But to up the ante, I also think the Bible is just as clear sacramentally as it is morally."
If I gave an average high school student a Bible for the first time and after reading through it I ask him if what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and abortion I suspect there would be an almost universal response. If I do the same thing except ask him to respond to questions about the doctrine of the Trinity I think answers would vary considerable.
The above paragraph is not intended to minimize the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity or the need to separate from the Jehovah's Witness.
My main point in my posts was to illustrate to Randy that even general revelation teaches that abortion and homosexuality is wrong, and it is beyond the realm of possibility, in my mind, that someone would become confused after reading the Bible. A human can suppress both general and special revelation in unrighteousness, but it is another think to believe the topic is confusing or requires additional study before deciphering what is taught.
Dean B
Dean, again, I agree. But I just want to make the point that the Bible is equally clear as it pertains to soteriology, sacramentology, ecclesiology, christology and morality. Your original post seemed to suggest that it is clearer as it pertains to morality than sacramentology.
ReplyDeleteI think I know what you are trying to get at. But it may be better to say that morality resides in a more natural and immediate space within us, whereas the other domains reside in a more supernatural and mediated space outside us, thus morality doesn’t have depravity plus extrinsicality getting in the way of clear reading. That’s better, I think, than suggesting that the Bible is less perspicuous on baptism than it is on morality.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
Well, my guess is that even a Catholic would say that the bare statement that “Jesus rose bodily from the dead” is something that can be affirmed without a Magisterium…
And you responded:
Affirmed by whom? Me? Sure I affirmed it long before I became Catholic. But if I was in a debate with a liberal. I would need a way to show my method of interpreting scripture was better than his. That despite the impossibility of raising a dead person after 3 days we are intended to take the accounts literally. But I would have a hard time making his method seem impossible from only the evidence actually in scripture. So I would end up making some sort of appeal to tradition. Christians have always seen the resurrection as a key element of the faith. If I was not allowed to go there then the debate would end up with one guy says it is clearly in scripture and one guy says it is not.
First, I never said appeals to tradition were out of bounds, I only said that they only go so far. As far as arguing with a liberal and trying to convince him that the bodily resurrection is important, why couldn’t you just appeal to the plain words of I Cor. 15? Paul there insists that Christ was raised in a spiritual BODY that was seen by hundreds of people who were still alive when he wrote, and that without the resurrection of the body believers are the most pitiable people in the world.
So I guess I don’t see the Bible being as insufficient as you do, and I tend to chalk up people’s disbelief of its claims to sin rather than to some deficiency in Scripture.
I hear Catholics make this claim all the time, but it just seems silly. The Bible is very clear that an unborn child is a person whom God has knit together, and the Bible is also clear that killing persons is wrong. Same with gay marriage—we don’t need a Magisterium to know it is wrong.
But what about a same-sex attracted person or a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy? Someone will tell them that Christian morality is strongly against abortion and gay marriage now but it will change. It changed on slavery. Morality progresses and eventually the churches fall into line. There are already many churches that have gone there.
They can hear that homosexuality is OK from their Catholic priest, too. Does that mean there’s something wrong with your Catechism, or that there’s something wrong with the priest?
How does a person facing a major life choice know God's will? I mean they really need to know because the moral choice looks pretty hard from their perspective. Just a pastor declaring scripture to be clear is not enough. Not in the face of whole denominations that declare this matter unclear.
Almost anyone seeking such guidance has more options than “hearing a pastor saying the Bible is clear,” they can sit down with a pastor and get deep counseling about whatever their problem is. What more can you offer them, especially when the CC is always changing the rules as well (at least in the minds of most average people)?
Biblicism does not work. People always add something to scripture. Some community, some history, some scholarship. But if you are honest and admit you are adding something then it makes sense to ask what is the best thing to add.
I agree, which is why I think Smith’s definition is too broad (I mean, lumping Mike Horton in with Benny Hinn, really?). As you know, what the Reformed do is seek to understand Scripture through the lens of both the Reformed confessions and ecumenical creeds in a context in which all human words are normed by God’s. We never claimed otherwise.