Thy word have I hid in my heart
That I might not sin against you.[1]
I had a wise teacher who said that “all analogies break down” at some point. We humans use the finite and imperfect to help us express understanding of the infinite, but we do well to steer clear of the danger of making the analogy equal with what it represents.
Language itself is one of these finite imperfect mediums we use to describe the spiritual. Within modern Evangelical Christianity, it seems that for many, the Bible is equal in status to the God it is supposed to be about. This justification has various roots including the use of the word “logos” but suffice it to say the Greeks who used the word “logos” didn't mean a volume of words but something far more nebulous and ethereal. Is there any other than God herself/himself who is inerrant and infallible? And the street preacher who waves his Bible around and flips through it to find the appropriate condemnation for a given sin; this “Biblicism”[2] is conjuring, using his god to get a desired result. Those who can't be without their Bibles act as though they have their god contained and can take him with them wherever they go.
If the “Word” however is some transcendent primordial force, then it is not contained by the fine calfskin that I bought from Cambridge Press (or the dozen or so other Bibles I have). All the Bibles in the world could be destroyed and the “Word” would still remain.
There is something about gazing at the stars that should remind us nightly of our frailty as humans within a vast universe. Light pollution today makes the stars barely visible for many of us, and permits us to forget this lesson. We willingly proceed to shut out the infinite in order to become the masters of our own universe. But the image of manmade light obscuring the true light of the heavens offers a profound lesson to us as we approach the study of theology. The paradox of light obscuring light may be the failure of the metaphor, or it may indicate a kind of darkness that comes from our desire to control, to conjure and contain - it is when we worship the description of God, while he slips out the back unnoticed.
I have come to the conviction that our Doctrine of Scripture falls under this category and deserves to be re-examined. For starters I am not denying the usefulness of the Bible, nor am I denying it as a record of divine interaction with humanity. Particularly I find fault with nuance, and although some people become irritated with “nit picking” it is in fact essential that someone somewhere along the way actually weeds through the “nits.” If a fallacy is found, we must change, rather than explain the fallacy through contortions of reason as has been the practice of “churchmen” in centuries past.
Paul exhorts Timothy and Titus to hold firmly to sound doctrine,[3] and James exhorts us to a wisdom that is not of this world.[4] We would be remiss to not take these warnings seriously especially in view of the following objections to the doctrine of scripture.
“Every theological idea which makes an impression upon you must be regarded as a challenge to your faith. Do not assume as a matter of course that you believe whatever impresses you theologically and enlightens you intellectually. Otherwise suddenly you are believing no longer in Jesus Christ, but in Luther, or in one of your other theological teachers.”[5]
It is those acting on the will to power who have redefined “wisdom” so that “to be wise” means to follow experience, tradition, and essentially fear.[6] That sense of fear has crippled many in their use of reason, with condemnation if the status quo is questioned. Likewise, those on the other side have sought to discredit all that is not arrived at through their brand of reason.
I have yet to hear these objections however - the following is a set of sample doctrines of scripture taken from some evangelical organizations:
“We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). We hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, infallible, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16 -17). The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21 ). While still using the individual personalities of the human authors, the Spirit superintended them to insure that they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission.”
(www.gotquestions.org)
“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”
(The southern Baptist convention)
“The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.”
(Campus Crusade for Christ)
Whether stated as the “perfect treasure,” the “66 books,” or “without omission,” all three and most doctrines of scripture affirm the Bible's completeness as the body of “scripture” referred to in 1 Timothy 3:16. They usually go on to affirm the inerrancy and accuracy through some version of dictation theory by God, many continue to say that it is the only source material and final authority in ALL MATTERS. Some go so far as to make the Bible a moral reference book which can be turned to like a dictionary to provide answers to all of life's questions.
The fact remains that what we have today is an imperfect recreation based on fragments and bits that were fortunately preserved, while others are lost forever. The Bible cannot be considered complete when we know for a fact that Paul wrote at least two more letters to the Corinthians, that the book of Isaiah is a compilation of several works. Most pointedly, if anyone is to open their own Bible to the end of Mark, or to John 4, they will note that the publishers have inserted a note saying that those passages are not trustworthy due to their absence from the earliest manuscripts.
The argument that the Bible was complete in its original manuscripts is worse than bogus, in that it has no bearing what-so-ever on the argument at hand. Taking this argument, the original manuscripts of which none were used to compile the canon, could have numbered 312 books, of which through periodic political and scribal interpretations, subsequent copies look nothing like the original. Further we know that whole sections of the Bible are not original material but have direct corollaries in the Ancient Near East Text.[7]
Various other arguments could be pursued and refuted ad-nauseum. How can a volume that is known to be incomplete, be considered complete? And when completeness is then used as the basis for infallibility and inerrancy we have even bigger logical problems. What if we could verify further writings as canonical, that yet contradicted either church tradition, the early church fathers, or say the doctrine of the trinity (which is never fully fleshed out anywhere in scripture) - we would have to chose between the new texts and hold the rules of canonics, OR say that tradition was more important - either way it would negate the need for an accurate canon at all. At this point religion becomes something of our own making, strewn with bits and smatterings of a former truth, so dissected as to be unrecognizable.
When a state interferes in religion in an effort to secure peace by ordering the reconciliation of varying sects, I dare say it is not the “Holy Spirit” that prevails in declaring who is a heretic, and more specifically how the council of Nicea or Chalcedon
My view on Scripture is simple. There is a thing called “scripture” which is the “word of God” as voiced by his breath. When Paul writes to Timothy “all scripture is God breathed” what was he saying? We have taken this to mean that everything in our book came straight from the mouth of God. We should be taking this to mean that whatever is given life to us by the breath of God is “Scripture.” Thus one of the major passages used for justifying canon, is not about canon at all. Paul is instructing Timothy that the word of God is made alive by the breath of God it is living and active so to say. A book is not so. All attempts to codify that living word, subsequently cautify it, and so the word of God can only be discovered personally. The Bible is the somewhat imperfect historical record of that perpetuation through individual discovery. The stories therein serve as signposts, God can speak through them to us, but the text itself is not the voice of God. Thielicke:
“The fundamental purpose of the gospel texts is therefore misunderstood if they are valued not as a testimony to faith but instead as a record of biographical and historical interest.”[10]
Again the issue is not particularly with the body of canon, it is what it is. The Bible as revelation, as the written account of Gods love for humanity stands without equal. I take issue with the doctrine of scripture, which so defines a document such that no document can fit the description. The Idolatry of the Bible has elevated it to the third member of the Godhead replacing the “Holy Spirit.”[11] Alternatively, the tradition of Scripture being the “quickened word of God” to you goes back in Jewish tradition in the concept of Remah far before the Current era. Karl Barth is quite verbose about Scripture in Church Dogmatics -
“The world of the Bible is only accessible, so to speak, from the bottom up by placing oneself under the divine word speaking through it… Although Barth's does not regard Scripture as perfect or infallible, Barth nowhere objects to the scriptural portrayal of God's character or (consciously) lets some other authority take precedence over Scripture… Barth believes these texts genuinely tell us something about God something that ought to overturn, rather than be deflated by, the Hellenistic conception of absolute divine immutability.” [12]
These are not merely the positions of Dan Brown. The mere fact that people have objections to the Bible does not make those objections invalid. Agenda's on the other hand often make something true into something false in motivation. It is true that many disingenuously ask these questions in triumph, but there are equally as many who seek real answers. Many feeling that they are in possession of the Truth have become Machiavellian[13] in their theology. The objections of some, to the councils, or the missing pieces, the copying, and unaccounted authorship do not need a whitewashed response appealing to “human wisdom” because as Paul states, this empties the Cross of its power.[14] As I stated, these for me are objections not to the Bible, but to the Doctrine of Scripture. We should be concerned to evaluate those positions we take on scripture such as infallibility, inerrancy, sufficiency, etc, and what the ramifications of those doctrines mean.
Some have sought to evaluate and determined that logically those doctrines apply only to the original manuscripts, but this answer rings hollow, because it is irrelevant. Our doctrine of scripture is only as useful as it is able to be applied to what we have in our possession today, and can be understood by the average person under pastoral guidance. In terms of canon;[15] “Jesus Christ is the authentic revelation of God, by which other alleged revelations can be judged.”[16]
We must reject subscriptionalism, if we hope to regain the gospel. And we must simplify our rule for faith and practice to what Ignatius of Antioch said it was; “Jesus Christ” the head of the church:
“Moreover, I urge you to do nothing in a spirit of contentiousness, but in accordance with the teaching of Christ. For I heard some people say, ‘If I do not find it in the archives, I do not believe it in the gospel.’ and when I said to them, ‘it is written,’ they answered me, ‘That is precisely the question.’ But for me, the ‘archives are Jesus Christ, the inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith which comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified.’”[17]
[1] Psalm 119:11
[2] Biblicism: refers to the uncritical, literal interpretation of Scripture, particularly to the quotation of a passage of Scripture out of context to prove a point of interpretation. (Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, second edition, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), p.33)
[3] Titus 1:9
[4] James 3:13-18
[5] Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1962) p.31
[6] Nihilist thinking such as Nietzsche’s leads directly to Existentialism.
[7] James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969)
[8] Constantine Milan 313 A .D. and in 325 that a council be held… he was interested in preserving the peace of Rome
[9]Some examples of bad popes:
Pope Stephen VI (896–897)
Pope John XII (937–964)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048),
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303),
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389)
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)
Pope Leo X (1513–1521),
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534),
“The Bad Popes” by E.R. Chamberlin (1969) (wikipedia: “bad popes”)
[10] Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1962) p.23
[11] Bibliolatry: a term connoting the idolization of the Bible in such a way as to make it, instead of God, the object of reverence. Coined by G.E. Lessing in 1777 (Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, second edition, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) p. 34)
[12] Todd Pokrifka-Joe, Appropriating Karl Barth's Theological Use of Scripture in Contemporary Theology, (University of St Andrews , Scotland
[13] Author of “The Prince” he is credited with the idea: “the ends justify the means.”
[14] 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:8
[15] A list or collection of books accepted as an authoritative rule of faith and practice. (Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, second edition, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) p.37)
[16] Alister McGrath, Understanding Doctrine; What it is – and Why it Matters, (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 1990) p. 19
[17] Ignatius of Antioch Grand Rapids
AnteChurch: confession of a young theologian, Copyright © 2010 by J.D.M. Jinno. All rights reserved. The Author grants the right for an individual to print one complete copy of this work for personal use only. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever (including but not limited to appearance on websites other than http://www.antechurch.com) without written permission except in the case of brief quotations. You may link to http://www.antechurch.com. For more information contact the author at antechurch @ gmail.com
http://www.antechurch.com
Many of the scripture quotations contained herein are recalled from memory, but generally they resemble the NIV.
http://www.antechurch.com
Many of the scripture quotations contained herein are recalled from memory, but generally they resemble the NIV.
Other quotations, are utilized in fair use
This work is not produced for profit
If you find an error in the citation of a work for which you hold the copyright, please contact the author directly.
This work is not produced for profit
If you find an error in the citation of a work for which you hold the copyright, please contact the author directly.
