Recently there was a discussion over Scripture at Evangel over whether it was infallible or inerrant and what that might mean. But this discussion I offer, in an important way is missing the point. [updated for clarity] In a prior discussion on inerrance/infallibility, I was pointed at some defenses of inerrancy. Thsee defenses pointed to verses within Scripture which write of Scripture as being inspired by the Spirit of God to defend that point of view. Whether or not that is a valid argument (and I’m not sure it is) Scripture is for any Christian tradition a primary tool used to understand the divine mysteries. Tradition in turn is legacy of the millennia of men and women and their progress into understanding and experiencing these mysteries.
Mystery itself is a widely misunderstood term. When we speak of mystery fiction, such as stories of the famous detectives like Ms Marple, Mr Holmes, and so on the mystery is primarily about unknown answer to the puzzle. The canonical ‘butler’ did it is not the answer to the mystery. The mystery is the experience, the unfolding and walking through toward and understanding of the occurrence in question. Telling someone that that butler “did it” does not move one towards a greater understanding of what occurred without the missing details, the context, the narrative, and the other details like means, method, and motive. These things can only be understood … and are what those protagonists strive to understand by exploring and understanding the fundamental kernel of mystery. To understand and uncover a mystery is an experiential phenomena.
Quantum mechanics is said to be a modern scientific mystery. It is one which cannot, by and large, be understood by hearing stories and words which, like ‘the butler did it’ try to describe the denouement of this 20th century physics discovery. It is understood though the experience gained by working through the mathematical details and mechanics until like the unfolding of the narrative of mystery fiction the kernel of the mystery is understood. Quantum mechanics, like those mysteries of God revealed as through a glass darkly in Scripture, is a mystery for which the core of which is ineffable.
Ineffability is not a rare thing. Most things in life in fact are ineffable. Your feelings for your wife, how to ride a bicycle, most of science (see for example Personal Knowledge), and in fact much of life is at its core ineffable. These things at their core contain central facets which are not expressible in words. They cannot be reduced fragments of language, but must be understood through the doing, or in the context of the above, are a mystery.
The arguments about fallibility vs inerrancy is one which sets aside the mystery at the core of Scripture. It is based, in part, on an assumption that reason alone can unpack and expose the ineffable mystery lying behind and within the core of the key facets which Scripture contains. Trinity, duality, and creed are tools for used by our reason in seeking to understand these mystery, which in turn can only be experienced and understood not by reason alone but what in late antiquity was called our nous, which is our whole mind … including those emotive and intuitive parts of which reason is just one facet.
Liturgy and Tradition contain the wisdom of the Christian millennia of men and women who did understand the mystery trying to uncover and demonstrate for the rest of us ways to deepen our understand the mysteries within our faith. The lives of Saints, heroes of our Church, should be (and are) recounted because in their lives these men and women who did indeed understand the mysteries in ways more profound than is ordinary can be utilized as examples for us to sink into those same mysteries. Scripture gives us a fabric, a background and Tradition gives us hermeneutic, methods, and examples.
February 2nd, 2010 | 9:19 am | #1
Mark:
I started reading this because of the first sentence; I stopped because of the third one.
This may be a very good article but I’ll never know: I have no idea what the third sentence means. Since it seems to be significant or central to the article, I couldn’t see continuing.
“When pointing at whether or not Scripture is or is not in-whatever verses within Scripture which offer it as inspired by the Spirit of God are used to defend that point of view.”
I am not trying to be obtuse – I can do that without trying, actually – or harsh. But as a former copy editor I feel compelled to say you need a copy editor.
Good came nevertheless, for I recalled Paul’s words to the Corinthians (the first Corinthians, not the second ones) about clarity of communication and read Scripture instead of your post. For my own sake and not for others (whom I assume are well-acquainted with the passage), I’ll end by quoting 1 Co 14.9:
“So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.”
(Note: If you do rewrite that sentence, please delete this comment. I don’t want to appear more unkind or critical than I already am. Thank you.)
February 2nd, 2010 | 9:36 am | #2
Mike,
Sorry, I’m a poor writer and I know it. Thanks for your help. In school I found maths much easier than writing. I had a professor who noted, “English is my second language … I don’t have a first.” I have a similar problem. A primary reason I started blogging is that I wanted to learn to write. As you note … often I need some pointers to highlight my falling down.
Thanks.
February 2nd, 2010 | 9:54 am | #3
I take issue here:
“Scripture is for any Christian tradition a primary tool used to understand the divine mysteries”
Scripture is the only authoritative tool for understanding divine mysteries. It is not a primary tool.
While it should not be used alone (there are others who have studied it who have valuable insights that we should consider), ultimately any and all understanding of God and the Christian faith must come always and only from Scripture.
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:08 am | #4
From Mark Olson: “These defenses pointed to verses within Scripture which write of Scripture as being inspired by the Spirit of God to defend that point of view. Whether or not that is a valid argument (and I’m not sure it is) Scripture is for any Christian tradition a primary tool used to understand the divine mysteries. Tradition in turn is legacy of the millennia of men and women and their progress into understanding and experiencing these mysteries.”
Right. To point to Scripture as self-authenticating is begging the question. It is also unscriptural: The Scriptures are the Truth, but the Scriptures say that the pillar and foundation of the Truth is the Church.
From Daryl Little: “Scripture is the only authoritative tool for understanding divine mysteries.”
Again (and paradoxically) this statement itself is unscriptural!
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:22 am | #5
Question:
If it is begging the question for Scripture to point to itself as the authoritative Word of God, to what higher authority could such a Word point?
In the same way, Jesus testified to Himself because there is no higher authority to which God can point.
If, Craig, that bit you quoted is unScriptural, it should be easy to point it out. Please do so.
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:28 am | #6
Mark, there is much to be learned from your short post; I have in mind your excellent descriptions of the “ineffable” side of knowledge, that is, the experience-knowledge of the risen Christ in the Scriptures by his Spirit, especially as lived out in the practice of (liturgical) worship.
But you shoot yourself in the foot with the very people who would most benefit from this post by dismissing their concerns about the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture as “missing the point.” They are not missing the point, but are addressing the point which has dominated much of the discussion in the West since Descartes made “knowledge” contingent upon a kind of uncontingent, absolute certainty (which he mistakenly believed humans can achieve).
I understand if Descartes has not had as much of his (misleading/destructive) influence on the Eastern Church, but saying Western Christians are missing the point is like an American telling a native American that his concerns about his native lands are missing the point of forgiveness; yes, in a way, but you are ignoring the history and Tradition of those you are talking to.
For someone who wants to encourage attentiveness to Tradition as “the legacy of the millennia of men and women and their progress into understanding and experiencing these mysteries,” it does no good to ignore the fact that the arguments over inerrancy/infallibility are, this side of Descartes in the West, a part of Tradition–and a legitimate question at that, though it has been answered badly by many in the West enamored by Cartesian epistemology.
Also, I need some clarification about this:
I assume you mean certain arguments about fallibility and inerrancy set aside the mystery rather than any argument taking seriously such matters.
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:46 am | #7
I have a thesis I’d like to float:
When we start talking about Scripture being “ineffible”, we have abandoned what it means to be Evangelicals.
Any comments?
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:49 am | #8
“If it is begging the question for Scripture to point to itself as the authoritative Word of God, to what higher authority could such a Word point?
In the same way, Jesus testified to Himself because there is no higher authority to which God can point.
If, Craig, that bit you quoted is unScriptural, it should be easy to point it out. Please do so.”
Dear Daryl: First of all, hi again. I’ve got to get to work, so I’m going to be gone for a while, but I wanted to address your questions.
Actually, both questions can be addressed with the same passage, already quoted earlier: It is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The Scriptures are the Truth (John 17:17) and inspired directly by God (2 Tim. 3:16). However, they come through Christ’s Body, God’s Family, and ultimately from God Himself. It is a simple logical mistake to say, “The Scriptures are God’s Word, and we know this because the Scriptures say they’re God’s Word, and we know that passage is true because the Scriptures are God’s Word.”
The Scriptures are God’s Word because they come from the direct action of God Himself moving by the Holy Spirit through His Church. It is the authority of God in His Church that stands under and authenticates the Scriptures.
Jesus is a different subject. He authenticates Himself because He is God. The Bible isn’t God.
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:13 am | #9
Frank,
I didn’t say that Scripture is “ineffable” but that the mysteries of our Faith (as I attempted to explain what that means above) is ultimately ineffable. For example, I wager you cannot put your love for your wife into precise and exact words which encompass and describe it in a useful and complete manner. How then can you expect to describe God, His love, or so much else about your faith in words completely?
The point is that Scripture is an essential and primary tool to explore the mysteries of our faith. That is its purpose. Given that as the aim, how do discussions of inerancy and infallibility further that goal?
I would prefer to use terms such as essential, primary, indispensable, and authoritative for us in seeking our understanding of God (and Man and our relationship to Him) over inerrant and infallible.
Albert,
I will agree I meant “certain” arguments. I had skimmed/scanned the posts which were suggested to me in the last inerrancy discussion and came away with an overall impression of their argument which I used in this post. I likely have over-generalized.
Daryl,
Yes, and your hermeneutic you glean from your tradition (or perhaps from outside of it).
Just so we’re all talking about the same thing, I take hermeneutic to mean how we extract meaning from text. Scripture is text. It cannot provide a hermeneutical method or methods.
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:20 am | #10
I’d also like to point out that we know Scripture is God’s word because Christ fulfilled it all.
That is not a logical tail-chase, nor does it indicate a logical tail-chase. It indicates that Christ validates the claims of Scripture, and Scripture’s claims point to Christ — which are two different ontological and epistemological issues.
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:21 am | #11
Frank,
I think you’re exactly right on that. To be evangelical is to be about the gospel.
And how can we know the gospel if it is incommunicable?
We were given a book, from God. His very words.
Doesn’t is say something about His character if he were to give us a book that could not be understood or explained?
Further, to use ineffable to describe the mystery is to overlook the fact that in Scripture, “mystery” generally refers to things long hidden, now revealed.
Certainly there is mystery in God. Tons and tons that we cannot understand, nor should we.
But what are we to make of “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
The Scripture has been given to us so that we might understand it, not that we might look at it and say “this is mysterious, who can know it?”
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:31 am | #12
“The point is that Scripture is an essential and primary tool to explore the mysteries of our faith. That is its purpose. Given that as the aim, how do discussions of inerancy and infallibility further that goal?”
What they do is help establish the absolute perfection and reliability of Scripture, in everything it touches, so that we can trust it to lead us into the correct understanding of the mysteries of the faith.
Without a perfect book, there can be no perfect leading.
Also, Mark, you said this:
“Yes, and your hermeneutic you glean from your tradition (or perhaps from outside of it).”
The hermeutic comes from 2 Tim 3:16-17
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Either Scripture is sufficient or it isn’t. If it is, then it is authoritative, if not, it’s just another helpful book.
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:38 am | #13
And since I’m already typing…
Since the Bible is God’s Word, it’s not really begging any questions (at least among believers) to say that God is validating His word, within His word.
February 2nd, 2010 | 11:39 am | #14
Mark, thank you for clarifying for me.
February 2nd, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #15
Let’s imagine for a minute that I’m wearing a name badge which says, “Frank Turk” on it — and it’s a hand-written job, like the ones you have to wear at Chamber of Commerce meetings and such.
If someone walks up to me and says, “well, how do I know your name is ‘Frank Turk’?”
My right response should be: “Because I said so — I wrote the name badge.”
Now, if the invasively-curious questioner then says, “that’s circular logic,” we ought to reply, “no: that’s an appeal the to correct authority.”
If he responds, “well, what if you’re lying?” we should respond, “that has nothing to do with circular logic: that has to do with the reliability and nature of authority. An honest man is a self-authenticating source; an honest testimony is a self-authenticating statement.”
It may make his head spin, but it is what it is.
February 2nd, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #16
Let me step into the role of a nauseatingly ecumenical peace-seeking bridge-builder for a moment. I think there’s compatibility here, between Mark’s basic “ineffability” idea and traditional evangelical views. (I think we can get very, very close, whether or not we can get to precisely the same place.)
I’ll even say it two ways: First like an Orthodox (in terms of an apparently paradoxical mystery), and then like a Western Modernistic Cartesian Enlightenment-Influenced Protestant (kidding–I’m just throwing out words now).
Orthodox-ish version: Ineffability & perspicuity meet in the energies of the Spirit expressed through Christ’s people.
Other version: God has spoken, revealing certain things about himself. He intends & enables us to understand certain things. He doesn’t intend us to understand everything–certainly not exhaustively. (As though finite beings could understand anything about God exhaustively!) Even where Scripture does speak, we can hardly say that it plumbs the depths. (Even where it does speak, the message is in “baby-talk”–God lisping to us, as Calvin put it.) Moreover, God grows our understanding of his teaching as it works out in our lives–as we walk by the Spirit, being shaped through the word, experiencing the power described therein. This has been happening in the lives of God’s people for 2000 years–so we do draw on the wisdom & maturity of our living elders, and on those who have gone before.
If that’s the kind of thing Mark has in mind with the term “ineffable”, or “deepening our understanding of the mysteries of Scripture”, then we can say “OK”.
On the other hand, it’s not clear how any of that would impact the appropriateness of terms like “infallible” or “inerrant”.
February 2nd, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #17
Daryl,
That’s not a hermeneutic. It doesn’t tell you by what method you use to extract meaning from text.
For example consider the Exodus story of crossing the Red Sea. You can take this literally as X (where X is a widely varying number throughout the Pentateuch) number of Israelite escaping slaves miraculously are led by Moses across the sea on dry land and the Egyptian army is drowned. Or spiritually, where Pharaoh and the Egyptians represent sin and Israel represent the people moving toward Zion/Canaan and God’s promise and the Red Sea and that passage typify Baptism. Or by Type, where the Red Sea and the passage of the people are a type of Christ’s nativity and the Red Sea and its restoration to a body of water typify the perpetual virginity of Mary. Or historical-critically, in which the context of the writing of this in the Kingdom period means that elements of this story by the J/P writers have to take account of the political polemic between Judah and Israel during that period.
These are different hermeneutics. Scripture does not prescribe a distinct singular hermeneutic with which to interpret it. …
That may be what Frank is getting at with this name badge comment … I’m not sure.
Jugulum,
Look you can read any number of books on how to ride a bike. But you don’t really know how to ride a bike until you experience it. It cannot be “put into words.” That’s what I mean by ineffable (see my remarks on your love for your spouse (or parent if you’re unmarried)).
Knowing the gospel and Christ isn’t an intellectual (reason-only) activity. It is experiential and requires the full participation of your full self, not just your reason, which is why I talked about your nous as separate from your reason.
From where I sit, the arguments of ineffable/inerrant and carefully trying to parse exactly what that means is a symptom of over-intellectualizing and trying to cram Scripture with logic and reason too tightly into a box into which it is not suited.
February 2nd, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #18
Let me make it clear that Mark is 100% wrong about the citation of Paul to Timothy, and the fact that Paul wrote those words in a letter tells us most of the reason why.
I hope I have 20 minutes later today to explain why.
February 2nd, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #19
The point is that Scripture is an essential and primary tool to explore the mysteries of our faith. That is its purpose. Given that as the aim, how do discussions of inerancy and infallibility further that goal?
If scripture is infallible then it is unable to err. If that’s the case, then its purpose isn’t as “an essential and primary tool” but as the primary tool. It, because it is infallible, can stand as a wholly trustworthy judge of other “tools”.
I guess what I’m saying is that you’ve started with a purpose for scripture that I wouldn’t agree with and decided on the basis of this that discussions of infallibility, etc. aren’t useful. But it’s because I believe that scripture is infallible that I hold to a different purpose for scripture than you do.
And don’t we have to determine the purpose for scripture based on what it is, rather than determining what it is based on what we assume it’s purpose is?
February 2nd, 2010 | 2:20 pm | #20
That’s not a hermeneutic. It doesn’t tell you by what method you use to extract meaning from text.
Why would you use any different hermeneutic for understanding the meaning of scripture than you would for any other text? Why wouldn’t you treat history as history and poetry as poetry, etc?
February 2nd, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #21
Rebecca,
So, what hermeneutic is prescribed for the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus? You have some footnote that tells you this is history vs poetry etc?
You realize the verse vs prose typesetting is a translators addition. The original text didn’t distinguish even between verse and prose.
Would you use the same hermeneutic for extracting meaning from Shakespeare, Whitman, and Homer. They are all poetry.
What do you take the purpose of Scripture to be?
February 2nd, 2010 | 3:26 pm | #22
What do you take the purpose of Scripture to be?
In relation to the purpose you give (as an essential and primary tool to explore the mysteries of our faith), I’d say its purpose is rather to be the definitive or ultimate revelation from God.
So, what hermeneutic is prescribed for the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus?
It is history so we read it as history.
You have some footnote that tells you this is history vs poetry etc?
Have you read Exodus? What genre would you say it is?
You realize the verse vs prose typesetting is a translators addition.
But why did they typeset it in verse? Was it not because they recognized it as Hebrew poetry?
Would you use the same hermeneutic for extracting meaning from Shakespeare, Whitman, and Homer. They are all poetry
Well, I might start by reading up a little on the conventions of Hebrew poetry. But, like the other poetry you mention, I would go at things understanding that poetry gives us meaning in images and figurative language.
February 2nd, 2010 | 4:40 pm | #23
Frank,
I think you prove Mark’s point with your name tag analogy. We know God’s Word by participating in the life of God. Without that participation, Scripture is dead to us.
February 2nd, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #24
Here’s a hermeneutic for you:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
(John 5:39-40 ESV)
So Israel crossing the Red Sea is about Jesus. Paul tells us why (I Cor 10). And it’s useful. And it’s true. And the mini-hermeneutics Mark mentions will be known by their fruit.
February 2nd, 2010 | 6:06 pm | #25
Another useful hermeneutic would be the appeal to authority Quotus Erat Demonstrandum (QED), or “This quote proves it”. (The most common manifestation is quote-mining the early church fathers. Considering context is frowned upon.)
A similar, but less common approach would be Ipse Dixit, or “A Dixie Chick said so”.
February 2nd, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #26
Rebecca,
I think we are splitting hairs.
So what was Abram to do? He had no Scripture. He had, however, direct experience of God. How about Peter in Acts. Scripture told him to obey dietary laws. He however had a dream/revelation to set that aside. It seems to me direct experience of God is not unimportant. So it seems that there are other paths to knowledge of God for Scripture tells us this is the case … hence the term “an” in my sentence. On the second half, “mysteries of faith” vs “revelation from God” … I think that is different words for the basically the same thing.
That in itself is almost meaningless, history as written when? Our modern notions of history differ from that of many ages. Why don’t you think that history meant something different to semi-nomadic illiterate herders of the patriarchal period as compared with today. Thus, do you not need to take into account what was meant by even that simple notion? Furthermore cannot narrative and text have layers of meaning? Cannot the 12 disciples not just mean that there were 12 disciples but also that this symbolically connects to the 12 tribes, to the 12 sons of Israel/Jacob or the 70 sent out by Jesus connect symbolically to the 70 elders in the desert? Taking your singular hermeneutic “read history as history” seems very flat and narrow to me.
Or it might be that traditionally it was seen as poetry and that obvious textual clues were not always available.
OK. And different poets have different means of attaching symbolic or their deeper meaning to the text, i.e., you need a different hermeneutic to read them properly.
And furthermore I think if you think there is no symbolic or other content contained in Biblical history … why do you think that to be the case. Do you know that the writers would not do such a thing?
Fr. Behr wrote that the Hebrews of antiquity and the Christian writers through late antiquity saw Scripture as a puzzle. Do you agree or disagree with that? If you agree, would that be because there are layers of meaning within Scripture … which also means we must apply multiple hermeneutical methods to the same text.
I apologize if I’m reading more into what you’re claiming than you are and I don’t want offer any offence.
February 2nd, 2010 | 7:01 pm | #27
Mark,
Did you convert to Orthodox(ish)y to escape modernism?
It’s not working.
February 2nd, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #28
David,
I’ll take that as an honest question.
I converted for a number of reasons. I’ll offer two. First, liturgical worship connects with me … and I had both grown up in the Western liturgical tradition (my parents are Lutheran) as a child before falling away and after returning found that the Byzantine rite differences were a way to connect my new conversion with newness of worship. Second, I find the patristic era writers compelling and the consistent constant patristic connection of even modern Orthodox theology compelling and important.
As to your prior remark, i.e., “So Israel crossing the Red Sea is about Jesus. Paul tells us why (I Cor 10). And it’s useful. And it’s true. And the mini-hermeneutics Mark mentions will be known by their fruit.” A question … can we then apply that same hermeneutic in other places, such as Job and Jonah being types of Christ or “about Jesus.” Why then not the Red Sea returning cannot be about Mary? Luther, Calvin and Zwilgli also affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary, btw. It is my impression that this is not the case for modern protestants.
Oh, and I do really like the phrase I saw in some modern French (conservative !?) philosophy of Chantal Delsol coining this age as “late-modernity.” And, yes, much as I might wish I could cast it aside, I am a child of late modernity.
February 2nd, 2010 | 8:49 pm | #29
So what was Abram to do? He had no Scripture. He had, however, direct experience of God.
God spoke to Abram and because it was God who spoke, Abram obeyed. God’s words were his ultimate authority, were they not?
How about Peter in Acts. Scripture told him to obey dietary laws. He however had a dream/revelation to set that aside.
God spoke to Peter, too. Because it was the Lord who spoke, Peter accepted the words as true and obeyed. By his actions he shows us where his ultimate authority was: In God’s words.
But here’s the deal: Where do I have God’s words?
It seems to me direct experience of God is not unimportant. So it seems that there are other paths to knowledge of God for Scripture tells us this is the case
But the only “tool” (to use your word) we have that we know cannot err is scripture, because it is the only “tool” that is described to us as “breathed out by God.” So it has to be the “tool” by which any other “tools” are judged. It is our measuring stick, so to speak.
On the second half, “mysteries of faith” vs “revelation from God” … I think that is different words for the basically the same thing.
Perhaps, but I didn’t know what you meant by mysteries of faith so I changed the wording to something I understand and can affirm.
Our modern notions of history differ from that of many ages.
They may have different conventions for writing history, but the writers of biblical history were still compiling a record of historical events. It may be useful for us to study the conventions in order to understand the history they are giving us, but we still read it as a historical record.
Furthermore cannot narrative and text have layers of meaning? Cannot the 12 disciples not just mean that there were 12 disciples but also that this symbolically connects to the 12 tribes, to the 12 sons of Israel/Jacob or the 70 sent out by Jesus connect symbolically to the 70 elders in the desert? Taking your singular hermeneutic “read history as history” seems very flat and narrow to me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “layers of meaning.” I’d say that God’s dealings with his people, as recorded for us in the history of the Old Testament, purposefully foreshadowed (or were patterned after) the centerpoint of his dealings in history that was to come, so that when he brought that big focal event pass, the faithful could recognize and understand it. But the historical record is still a historical record. It’s just a historical record of events that are foreshadows or patterns.
i.e., you need a different hermeneutic to read them properly.
It always helps to understand an author in order to understand his intended meaning in the words he writes. I wouldn’t call that a different hermeneutic, just a good hermeneutic that ought to always be used.
And furthermore I think if you think there is no symbolic or other content contained in Biblical history
I think there is symbolic—I prefer the words “foreshadowing” or “patterning” content in Biblical history in the way I outlined above. It may be a historical record of events that foreshadow things to come, but it is still a historical record of actual events.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
I have don’t know what it means, so I can’t say.
February 2nd, 2010 | 10:51 pm | #30
” i.e., those theologians, holy men and women who read Scripture, fasted, prayed, and sought God and an understanding of God before you and me. I think we call that, uhm sorry, tradition. ”
Mark, I just wanted to point out something here. I think your definition of tradition is different from the Evangelical definition.
Perhaps I’m wrong (and for heaven’s sake, correct me if I’m not..), but I understood that tradition in the Catholic sense, and, I assume, the EO sense as well, refers to those things that we are beholden to believe because they were passed down as traditions.
That then leads to believing in an extra-biblical idea like the Marian dogmas, not because they are found in Scripture, but because they are held out as the tradition of the church, that is they are believed essentially because the church says so.
In the Evangelical faith, tradition, as you used it in the quote I clipped out, is the wisdom and learning of those who have gone before, which only helps me to understand Scripture. They have no authority, but I should use them, as I would use a trusted friend. Perhaps they carry more weight than a stranger, but in the end, where they disagree in the slightest with Scripture, I must abandon them.
And, even where they appear to agree with Scripture, it is only their agreement with Scripture that gives them any weight at all. If they touch on things, however wisely, that Scripture doesn’t (say for instance, do cats go to heaven), there is no obligation to believe what they teach at all.
I say all that to say that there is probably a disconnect with the Evangelical commenters here when you try to use what you, or they, call tradition as you do.
For us it has no real authority, for the Catholic and EO, as I understand it, it seems to.
Am I wrong in saying that for the Catholic or EO, inerrancy is less of an issue because it is their respective magesteria which holds the correct meanings of Scripture?
Yet for the Evangelical, it is the very words of Scripture itself that holds those meanings.
This is why Luther (I think it was Luther…) who essentially said that a shepherd boy with a Bible he could read, could stand against the Pope of Rome. Because the boy holds in his hand an authority which the Pope (or EO equivalent, sorry) will never have.
February 3rd, 2010 | 12:16 am | #31
You have God’s words from Scripture …
Exactly.
and your interpretation of those words is aided wonderfully by standing on the shoulders of giants, i.e., those theologians, holy men and women who read Scripture, fasted, prayed, and sought God and an understanding of God before you and me. I think we call that, uhm sorry, tradition.
Yes. But there is a possibility that any of those people could err in what they teach. So this tradition is not infallible. That means it stands below scripture itself, which is infallible. Scripture is the perfect measuring stick of those traditions. Any interpretation of scripture, for instance, can be judged on the basis of how well it fits the context it is found in, how well it fits the argument being made, how well it fits with what the rest of scripture says.
So … if then I read that Old Testament and specifically look for that foreshadowing … isn’t that exactly “using a different hermeneutic?” After all, you’re seeking a different sort of meaning in the text.
Isn’t looking for the author’s purpose in recording certain events part of interpreting any historical account?
Many patristic writers took, for example, the journey of the people and their struggles in Canaan to extract a pastoral message by analogy making a comparison of their struggle with the spiritual struggle against sin, the devil, and temptation. Is that a proper hermeneutic or not?
That’s applying scripture. I wouldn’t call that hermeneutics (or interpretation).
Is that proper?
I’m not sure what it has to do with this discussion. Can you explain?
I’m unclear on why inerrancy/infallibility is so important. … why is inerrancy qua inerrancy important?
Because we need an infallible source of the truth that God wills to tell us. We need some standard or rule to which we submit our human thoughts.
February 3rd, 2010 | 8:44 am | #32
Rebecca,
Hermeneutic is the method you use to extract meaning from text. In the example you call “applying Scripture” is in fact, by the definition I gave a different hermeneutic than reading it “as history.”
One line of thought is that the natural world is another source of God’s revelation. Typology is a Biblical hermeneutic which is different from “reading it as history or poetry.” I’m just pointing out that hermeneutic has been applied to not-Scripture in the context of Christian teaching. I thought that might be relevant.
Right. I have not claimed it is.
If that’s all its about, then I’m not sure there’s any argument here. We’re just picking nits. We’re doing the same thing, i.e., submitting to Scripture. You just seem to need to tack on infallible and I don’t think its necessary or even helpful because it in fact can lead people astray.
Daryl,
I don’t think so. EO at least has no “statement of faith.” We have Nicene creed, the councils and the “body of patristic writing”, and our liturgical texts which guide which you might call Tradition. We have no authority which holds us to any particular interpretation of the same.
I disagree. Scholars write today that the Arian heresy was not a single man’s writings and teachings that were extra-Scriptural but were based on a extant tradition of Scriptural interpretation (hermeneutic). Arius based his idea that Jesus was a created being on Scripture. If that shepherd boy contended with an Evangelical using a Scriptural interpretation along same lines as the Arian … you’d reject him out of hand. Why? Because of your traditional interpretation of Scripture leads you that way. Calling it a “trusted friend” I think is not the case, I think even for you, although perhaps it is in your tradition to deny that it is. :D
February 3rd, 2010 | 8:56 am | #33
“where they disagree in the slightest with Scripture, I must abandon them.”
Because after all, what the world really needs right now is another denomination. :) But this, finally, would be the denomination with the RIGHT interpretation of Scripture.
A couple of stabs have been taken to argue that the “Scripture as God’s Word authenticates itself” line of thinking is not circular or question-begging. I still haven’t quite caught why not. Once more, for me, please? (This isn’t a sarcastic request–I really don’t see why something which to me is so clearly begging the question is actually not.)
February 3rd, 2010 | 9:22 am | #34
Mark,
You misunderstand, or maybe I don’t understand your last paragraph.
Arius may have claimed to have based his claims on Scripture, but using any hermeneutic other than “I don’t think He is God, let me see what I can find about that” easily proves him wrong.
A shepherd boy addressing the Evangelical faith, may be rejected, but not out of hand. If his arguments cannot be countered from Scripture, why would he? (I’m not saying that no Evangelical would, there’s always some…many even)
The point is, any teaching about God, can and should be countered by Scripture or believed.
I think you really do misunderstand the weight that Evangelical’s put on Scripture. For myself, at least, there is a fair bit that I have believed ‘because I was taught it’ only to be confronted with Scripture and realize that I must agree with it and not something else.
I’m not saying that no Evangelicals (or even a lot) don’t hold fast to their traditions, I would suggest that the vast majority do, what I’m saying is that the nature of Evangelicalism makes that a huge contradiction.
No doubt the EO and Catholic traditions are different, but I once heard a clear example of the difference between Catholics and Evangelicals on “Catholic Answers”. I forget what the called asked exactly, but the answer was something like “The advantage that you have as a Catholic is that you don’t have to prove [such and so] from Scripture, because the church has told us what we ought to believe about that.”
To an Evangelical that sounds (or should sound) terribly cultic and foolish, primarily because the need to consult Scripture was so plainly rejected in favour of “tradition”.
Also, in your comment to Rebecca, I think you’re seriously confusing application with interpretation.
Interpretation says ‘the Bible says that because of their disobedience they spent 40 years in the wilderness before they entered Canaan’, application says ‘where might I be currently wandering because of my own disobedience’.
The hermeutic is aimed at understanding what the author was saying, so history is…history. Nothing more, nothing less. How that history applies to a given situation will vary widely without ever changing the hermeneutic.
Where a different hermeneutic comes in, is where someone says “Israel never actually wandered anywhere for 40 years, this is merely a spiritual story about a believer’s life.”
February 3rd, 2010 | 10:00 am | #35
Craig and others:
A couple of stabs have been taken to argue that the “Scripture as God’s Word authenticates itself” line of thinking is not circular or question-begging. I still haven’t quite caught why not.
Perhaps because the claim is imprecisely stated. When stating what the “Bible claims” about itself, we’re not referring to a book qua book, but to the testimony of Jesus, Paul and Peter recorded therein.
So I would say the place to start is to ask if you consider authoritative the recorded statements of Jesus, Paul and Peter on the subject of Scripture. If so, we can proceed to talk about what they say.
If not, it would help to know your reasons.
February 3rd, 2010 | 10:21 am | #36
Daryl,
Hermeneutic: How we extract meaning from text.
If I extract a pastoral/spiritual message from the text this is different from extracting a meaning that “the Israelites wandered for 40 years.” I can’t see why you disagree. These are different meanings extracted via different methods. Ergo it is a different hermeneutic.
Perhaps what you’re stuck with is that you think that a person must use a single hermeneutic. That is not the case. I can use a spiritual hermeneutic alongside a spiritual (and typological) one.
That is not what scholars claim. While I strongly affirm St. Gregory of Nazainzus defence of orthodox Trinitarianism in his five masterful orations but I think the contention that his opponents were just proof-texting, assuming their conclusion and then looking for support, and were either stupid or malefactors is both not correct and mean-spirited.
I’m not Catholic, there is no such animal as the EO magisterium. We do however refer to what others have said (councils, fathers, liturgy) and not just rely on our own personal ability to read the text … and as I pointed out neither do Evangelicals.
February 3rd, 2010 | 12:03 pm | #37
You just seem to need to tack on infallible and I don’t think its necessary or even helpful because it in fact can lead people astray.
If you haven’t come up against people who are working to determine where the errors are in the written word, deciding which parts came from the misunderstanding or prejudices of the authors, you may not think the discussion is necessary or helpful.
February 3rd, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #38
Rebecca,
I had started to reply to you in an earlier message, but must have edited it out or deleted it. But I was hoping to back up and discover toward what rhetorical argument/polemical point was inerrancy aimed. But thankfully you’ve answered that.
And no, I haven’t had any discussions with people aimed at locating which parts are errors in the text or which parts are prejudices bleeding from the author to the text. That may be a relic of letting anybody and everybody pick and choose whatever hermeneutic they prefer when approaching the text. You have no way (outside of tradition) to tell that person they are in error. My point is inerrancy is perhaps not the right tool to tackle that problem, given that under the hood you’re using your particular tradition’s hermeneutical praxis … which is not accepted by the other. Given that text itself can not define hermeneutic … that poses something of a problem.
My point is whether or not I have encountered these people, I don’t use infallibility to counter them but instead point to 2 thousand years of Scriptural interpretation with which they need to stay roughly in agreement. For example, if your new idea disagrees with Chrysostom, Palamas, Maximus, Basil, et al.’s interpretation of that , you’re never going to win over a Orthodox listener. And no, individually they have warts and faults and mistakes … but collectively we think they’ve got a handle on how to correctly interpret Scripture.
February 3rd, 2010 | 2:29 pm | #39
And yet…if they were wrong…and you, with a Bible in your hand, unwilling (apparently) to challenge them, make those men defacto infallible all the while saying that it’s somehow counter-productive to give God the same consideration.
At least I understand why infallible and inerrant are not usable categories here.
No rhetoric here, it really really does shock me to the core and leaves my stomach in knots.
February 3rd, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #40
“So I would say the place to start is to ask if you consider authoritative the recorded statements of Jesus, Paul and Peter on the subject of Scripture. If so, we can proceed to talk about what they say.
If not, it would help to know your reasons.”
Yes, of course I would accept them as authoritative, but for the same reason all Christians always have (including all Protestants): because these statements, after eventually being written down, were accepted by traditional usage within the Church and then corroborated by Church council. It’s exactly the same reason (in reverse) we do not have an Epistle of Clement in the New Testament.
If fellow Christians could bring themselves to admit this, probably a lot of Mark Olson’s points would simply evaporate.
February 3rd, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #41
If you accept them as authoritative, then why all the balking at words like “infallible” and “inerrant”?
February 3rd, 2010 | 2:49 pm | #42
Mark,
Would you say that your last post explains why you chose to use the word “ineffable”?
Is it because you see the Scripture as “incapable of being expressed in words” without the interpretation being supplied from the particular church fathers you have chosen to follow?
February 3rd, 2010 | 3:20 pm | #43
Craig:
Then what, e.g., are we to make of Peter’s statement, viz.: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
In the instance of such prophecy, were the words produced by the men who spoke from God and carried along by the Holy Spirit, errant or inerrant?
February 3rd, 2010 | 4:58 pm | #44
Dear J.D.: I guess I am not seeing the problem. Of course they were inerrant, inerrant from the very time of composition. How does that change the fact that they were eventually recognized as such and compiled as Scriptures by the Church?
By the way, this post I am writing is directly inspired by God. You know it is because I am telling you now. The fact I am telling you that it is inspired is evidence that it is inspired, because an inspired post wouldn’t be wrong.
February 3rd, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #45
Perhaps part of the problem here is that when I hear “inerrant,” I also hear the little addition “inerrant when rightly interpreted.” I think we would agree that interpretations can be errant.
So the question goes back to “And who has the authority to proclaim interpretation magisterially?” The adverb is clearly chosen deliberately, and ties into what Mark Olson refers to as “tradition.”
If every believer has the God-given right to “private interpretation” and magisterial proclamation, then there is no problem with the current divided situation of the Church. However, I do not think this is correct.
February 3rd, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #46
Craig,
That last comment only works if those “churches” with magisterially approved interpretations of Scripture had no divisions.
That is, of course, not the case. So you’re back where you started with that.
Incidentally, as long as it’s agreed that interpretation is fallible (and magisterial claims aside, I think everyone would agree to that) then how is it that anyone would use the church fathers, uninspired men who studied the Scriptures, as their fall back position. And further, while using that position as a reason why they won’t use the terms “inerrant” or “infallible”.
At bottom, the Scriptures aren’t so complicated as all that. They are difficult sometimes, but never to the degree that “They’ve studied it for 2000 years” becomes a valid argument.
February 3rd, 2010 | 6:35 pm | #47
Craig: I guess I’m the one who’s not getting the objection now. If you accept that Peter’s statement about prophecy is correct, rendering such writings inerrant, then it’s not circular reasoning. It’s tied to a reliable source, in this case Peter. Trusting what Peter says is not circular. One can produce reasons for such trust.
The same goes for Jesus.
That’s all. There’s no need to be suspicious about inerrancy.
Re: interpretation, that’s of course another issue. But if one’s starting position is inerrancy it does, IMO, lessen the tendency to ignore plain meanings when the zeitgeist tempts one in that direction.
February 3rd, 2010 | 7:34 pm | #48
I do trust what Peter says. Very much. :)
February 3rd, 2010 | 7:37 pm | #49
Daryl,
No I don’t think Scripture is ineffable. Frank suggested that and I offered that he got it wrong.
I think God, Trinity, the Gospel, Eucharist and so on are at their core ineffible, that they need to be experienced to be understood (hence the discussion of mystery).
Oh, and was your stomach turning in knots because of something I wrote? If so, what? because I suspect its a result of a misunderstanding.
February 3rd, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #50
Mark,
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, I don’t know.
But this: “For example, if your new idea disagrees with Chrysostom, Palamas, Maximus, Basil, et al.’s interpretation of that , you’re never going to win over a Orthodox listener.”
Coupled with your insistence that Scripture not be called inerrant or infallible, tells me that you’ve chosen a few (or however many) church fathers and identified their collective wisdom as basically infallible (without using the word, granted) by virtue of placing them as the standard by which all biblical interpretation is to be judged.
To my way of thinking, giving the interpretations of men, even collectively, such a high standing, while refusing to say the same about Scripture, speaks volumes.
February 3rd, 2010 | 10:55 pm | #51
Daryl,
Uhm, what sort of new interpretation of Scripture might be missing? No seriously. Give me an example of a new-fangled notion theological problem in and of Scripture that you want to take seriously that wasn’t considered already in late antiquity.
Look one of the points those patristic fathers taught that you and I both agree on is the primary importance of Scripture. I’m unsure of where that fits into your puzzle, but I think its going to settle your stomach a bit.
Rebecca was using inerrancy as a foil against liberal/progressive newfangled way of interpreting Scripture. But any new interpretation is going to employ a different hermeneutic … and given that Scripture, as text, does not have an implicit hermenuetic. Thus inerrancy is a poor defence. Thus you can’t use inerrancy to combat a Scripturally based (like an Arian variant) heresy without an appeal to tradition, i.e., the weight and importance of the hermeneutical methods of the fathers.
February 4th, 2010 | 9:36 am | #52
There are several marvelous moments in this thread. This is my favorite:
I’m wondering when this appeal will transition from “no scripture, but yet experience” to the example of Jesus who had Scripture, but then was able (and willing) to say after Scripture, “It is written, but I say to you” — demonstrating something greater than Abraham.
We are neither Abraham nor are we Jesus, and much as we love them both. We are people who receive a promise in a certain way — and I thought that this is what this conversation was about.
Instead, I think I’m finding out it’s about something else.
February 4th, 2010 | 9:47 am | #53
“We are people who receive a promise in a certain way — and I thought that this is what this conversation was about.
Instead, I think I’m finding out it’s about something else.”
No, I think you were close the first time. Doesn’t it seem the whole thread revolves around questions something like “Is Scripture the sole authority for Christians?” and “What does it mean for an authority to be inerrant and infallible?”
Or maybe I’m missing the point of the original thread?
February 4th, 2010 | 12:05 pm | #54
Rebecca was using inerrancy as a foil against liberal/progressive newfangled way of interpreting Scripture. But any new interpretation is going to employ a different hermeneutic … and given that Scripture, as text, does not have an implicit hermenuetic.
No, you misunderstood what I said. I was simply giving you one example of where the particular doctrine of infallibility would be useful and you misunderstood, it seems, that example. I was using the example of people who say that the written word itself is wrong in places, not of people who interpret those words wrongly.
We are people who receive a promise in a certain way — and I thought that this is what this conversation was about.
I thought so, too. That’s why I considered the conversation more or less over when Mark answered that we have God’s words in scripture.
February 4th, 2010 | 12:14 pm | #55
I hope we can all agree that somebody needs to get First Things to stop accepting ads from Fred Price.
February 4th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #56
Rev. Price is practicing a Scripture-only method of biblical interpretation and as such should be welcome, correct? Or is there a tradition of interpretation which would exclude him?
February 4th, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #57
I think if we’re going to run ads for movies about Fatima, might as well run ads for Fred Price.
That stuff is all cut from the same cloth.
February 4th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #58
Ouch.
February 4th, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #59
The ultimate hermeneutic is to be of the elect. If you were not chosen by God to be saved, then the Bible will make no sense to you. At least that’s what the Calvinists teach me.
February 4th, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #60
Ortho,
I realize you said that as a joke, but I think you’re accidentally onto something there.
The Bible must make sense, and, while acknowledging that scholars and pastors of all times are a great help in that, at the end of the day, what they teach cannot be readily found in Scripture, I doubt its even there.
That’s why inerrancy/infallibility of the source material (Scripture) is so important, while, at the same time, the errancy and fallibiliy of the church fathers (whoever THEY are exactly) is equally important to ‘fess up to.
Disagreeing with the interpretation of the church fathers is hardly a big deal, they themselves disagreed with each other (while also recognizing that anything truly novel is almost surely not worth anyone’s time or effort), but not being able to find a given teaching in Scripture without their help, now that’s a problem.
Which is why Mark’s statement (which I admit, I may have misunderstood) that any interpretation that disagrees with the EO’s chosen group of church fathers, baffles me and turns my stomach in knots.
It seems that at that point, one could put there very soul in danger, and never realize it, simply because they (appear to have) chosen the wrong authority.
And…for the record, I realize and confess that we Evangelicals also tend to do that with our preacher/historical figure/confession of choice. So I’m not saying its only Rome and the EO. It’s just that they seem to have codified their choice of ‘must listen to’ church fathers.
February 4th, 2010 | 5:19 pm | #61
Well, I believe in libertarian human freedom, so I think anyone can know God. Having said that, I think knowing God is more important that knowing the words of the Bible. I understand it can be argued that I am committing the fallacy of false dichotomy, so to answer that now what I am saying is that it is better to know God than to simply know words ABOUT God. I also believe, though, that the more I come to know God, the more sense the Bible will make to me. I also believe that is very important to understand the basics of literature such as context, genre, historical period, etc. I don’t understand all of the “either/or’s” that people propose.
In defense of what Mark is saying (forgive me Mark, if i misrepresent you), I think a way to look at is all is like this: the Fathers are not a “chosen” group that was chosen at random, nor were they chosen only after the fact by some external criteria such as “they follow the correct hermeneutic” (after all, why use them as examples if we know the correct hermeneutic?). I think what EO folks are generally trying to argue is that the Fathers are worthy of being listened to because of their lives, their influence, and their acceptance by Christians. Orthodoxy has no problem with the idea of man being part of the process. After all, man is what we are, it is what God Himself became, it is what we will be in glory. The Church was promised that God would guide her into all truth. The Spirit does so through man.
By the way, Frederica Mathewes-Green, an Orthodox convert makes mention that the Church has a saying: One-hundred percent of the Fathers were right eighty percent of the time.
February 4th, 2010 | 7:32 pm | #62
Ortho,
I understand what you’re saying about the fathers, trouble is, it’s not quite true.
There were widely differing views, even within the lifetime of an individual (like Augustine for instance), and so what happens, is that different groups pick and chose the fathers they prefer, and then say that they have the correct understanding of Scripture.
This is why it must begin and end with infallible Scripture, not with the fathers.
February 4th, 2010 | 10:52 pm | #63
Dear Daryl: I understand that we are ultimately just going to have to disagree. When I read your last sentence, I mentally insert, “This is why it must begin and end with [my] infallible [interpretation of] Scripture, not with the fathers.” What every believer now thinks about Scripture trumps tradition and the Fathers on Scripture.
Yes, the Fathers were occasionally contradictory. That’s why we need a line of apostolic succession, stretching back to Christ Himself, and the teaching authority of the Spirit Himself as invested in that line of tradition, to eventually arrive at clarity amidst the disorder.
Yep. You knew where I’d end up. :) But really, I see no good alternative. The alternatives I’ve heard suggested seem always to end at the almighty and infallible private interpretation.
February 5th, 2010 | 7:38 am | #64
I wanted to say for the record that Descartes’ standard of absolute certainty does not originate with him. It can be found in the ancient world, most notably in Socrates, Plato, and the ancient Skeptics. Like Descartes, Plato thought he could have absolute certainty, but he thought that could only come from a priori understanding of the basic building blocks of the very natures of things (i.e. the Forms). The Skeptics knew that this wouldn’t get you very far (but somehow failed to realize that it does get you something, even by skeptical standards, as Augustine deftly pointed out).
The argument that scripture is inerrant because it says it’s inerrant is indeed circular and thus question-begging. But that completely misses the point of the discussion as it was going on here. Those like me who were pointing to scriptural statements to support inerrancy were responding to the objection that scripture does not even claim such a thing about itself, and we were insisting that it does. As a response to that objection, there is nothing question-begging about finding scriptural passages that do indeed imply inerrancy.
Also, if we’re going to abandon the need for absolute certainty for something to count as knowledge, I can offer a non-question-begging but non-certain argument. Take someone who believes scripture is generally reliable but perhaps not inerrant. Such a person would not be 100% convinced to absolute certainty by my showing passages that imply inerrancy, since those might be the errant parts. But if we don’t expect absolute certainty, and the person does in fact accept general reliability, then scripture’s statements implying inerrancy should count as some evidence for the claim that scripture is inerrant, since scripture is generally reliable and claims such a thing about itself. So it’s an assumption of a need for Cartesian certainty to reject such arguments as circular, at least if you start with the assumption that the Bible is reliable enough that we give it strong consideration when it tells us something. There’s nothing circular about that.
If you can’t get a hermeneutic from a text, then you can’t get it from a hermeneutics textbook. Since that seems obviously false, you better be able to get it from another text too. In fact, the Bible does offer plenty of exemplars of hermeneutics, including the epistles’ statements on how to interpret the OT, Jesus’ own interpretations and how he applies them, quotations and allusions from earlier portions of scripture, etc. Deuteronomy in some cases continues, expands, or supercedes earlier laws. Prophets extend Pentateuchal laws to further situations, most notable when Jesus does so in the Sermon on the Mount. But Jesus also gives significant guidance on what his followers are not to take from the OT, and Paul gives explicit continuation of some particulars from the OT. So the claim that you can’t get hermeneutics from the Bible is simply false. You might not be able to get all the details of how you should take every case, at least not with Cartesian certainty, but there’s plenty of hermeneutical guidance already within the scriptures.
As for the claim that you can’t combat a scripturally-based heresy by merely thumping inerrancy, that is of course correct. That’s why you need to do good exegesis so you know what the inerrant text says. Inerrancy with bad exegesis produces false beliefs about what the text says. The fact that inerrancy doesn’t serve every apologetical purpose you might ever want doesn’t mean it’s stupid to include it in one’s doctrine of scripture.
February 5th, 2010 | 8:55 am | #65
I think this discussion has to get back to this statement in the original post:
My suggestion is this: even if all other things in life are ineffable, Scripture by definition cannot be speaking of ineffable things and cannot be itself ineffable.
And again, I am greatly disturbed that I can’t stay here to tussle about this for the day. I hope to get some leverage on my life this weekend and catch up.
February 5th, 2010 | 8:58 am | #66
“Inerrancy with bad exegesis produces false beliefs”
I think we all would agree, as I agree with your post in general. The argument over the role of tradition, however, simply brings up the question: “Bad” exegesis and “false” beliefs according to….?
I also agree, of course, that the Bible itself points to itself as infallible, inerrant, and absolute Truth. I just mentioned, in my kind and open-hearted way, that under that Truth lies its pillar and foundation, the Church (and its tradition).
February 5th, 2010 | 8:59 am | #67
Dear Frank Turk: May God bless your weekend and work.
February 5th, 2010 | 9:09 am | #68
I would go so far as to suggest that, at least in part, a lot of this discussion goes to the belief that Jesus is, in fact, not that one mediator between God and man.
Because that is so often not really believed, we begin to believe that there must be another. And so we look to the church fathers (for no doubt, they, being so old, must have a better idea, and having lived so close to the time of Christ, must understand Him better) or to a magesterium (after God couldn’t have left us with mere preachers and teachers and His inerrant, infallible, perfect and 100% sufficient Words, we need someone to make pronouncements from on high), but not to the Scriptures themselves.
If Jesus is the one mediator, and if God has provided us with a perfect record of His words, then I can trust Him and it.
If not, I need another mediator, and there are plenty of people out there, ready, willing and completely unable to take that role for us.
As Jeremy intimated, if the infallible word of God doesn’t give us the hermeutic, are we to turn to another mediator to provide one? Or are we to trust that God has made His word understandable?
Craig,
You may insert those words if you like. They are not there, and they are not true. I have believed things of God which I no longer believe (as I hope we all have), because I was shown my error from Scripture, not because I was simply told I was wrong.
I fear that 1500 years of false teachers telling the masses that they were unable to understand God without a further mediator, has left it’s impact on countless thousands.
If tradition and the fathers and a magisterium wish to do more that provide help, and would rather become authoritative, well then they put themselves in the place of Scripture and God Himself.
They can have that place if they’d like, but they can hardly find fault with those who’d rather keep God and His words where they belong.
February 5th, 2010 | 10:15 am | #69
“My suggestion is this: even if all other things in life are ineffable, Scripture by definition cannot be speaking of ineffable things and cannot be itself ineffable.”
Given that Scripture is words, and ineffability basically means “incommunicable” or “unexplainable”, how can Scripture explain the unexplainable and how can written words be ineffable?
It does seem oxymoronic.
I think Mark was after the inexplainable parts, like what love (for example) is on the inside of you. But Scripture seems to describe love quite clearly, without attempting to clarify what it feels like.
It assumes those things, but it goes further, by explaining what those things look like in real life.
This, in part, would be why the Mormons claim the “burning in the bosom”. How can you refute that? But Scripture never does that, it puts everything out in the light of day, where they can be seen or disproven.
It ties love to preferring one another, it ties faith to what faith does, it ties repentance with repentant actions. In fact, particularly with faith, it admits up front that unless faith does something, it is not even there, effectively making the unexplainable part of faith, irrelevant.
Christianity is real life and it does things in real life. Just like what love feels like is ineffable and although we recognize it within ourselves (although even that we get wrong most often), it can be more easily identified by what it does.
At the beginning of this, someone asked Mark if he became EO to escape modernity, which was interesting, because this whole ineffable thing can really start to sound like the post-modern “virtue” of uncertainly at all costs.
February 5th, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #70
“Bad” exegesis and “false” beliefs according to….?
According to what the text actually says. Just because we have fallible means of figuring that out doesn't mean we need tradition to tell us what the text means, as if contemporary archeology, linguistics, research into background socio-cultural patterns, and so on are less likely to produce a correct interpretation than reading some historical figure hundreds of years removed from the text.
February 5th, 2010 | 12:59 pm | #71
“According to what the text actually says.”
Sure. Like Fred Price’s sermons. :)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact