Comments on: The Curious Case of Robert Gundry

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:21:36 +0000

RR,
No, so far as I can see, there are none that are not potentially revisable, perhaps even in large part. Given that we work our way through a fallen world with fallen minds, it might always be prudent to fly the banner of “provisional” over our conclusions. That’s not to say that knowledge is impossible or that relativism is the way to go. Both those ideas are false, and I resist them. But humility and teachableness remain the order of the day for folks like us — and for the magisterium that some advance as above this limitation.

By: Remember Rollen

Remember Rollen — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:38:45 +0000

MB, As we seek truth and understanding, I wonder if we possess any “ways and means” that aren’t “potentially revisable and improvable.” I don’t see that we do, even if we grant that the Bible, as truly interpreted, would be an “infallible authority.”

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:28:29 +0000

RR,
If I understand your point correctly, then “yes;” though by that I’m not saying that the standards, or measures, in view are an authority, certainly not an infallible authority. Rather, they are the potentially revisable and improvable ways and means by which we have come to understand some portion of the truth, and (in this case) hopefully to interpret the Bible more accurately as a result.

By “truth” here, I mean ideas that are in accordance with reality, with the way things really are. In that sense, if you like, we can call reality the standard, or the measure, by which we must judge between competing truth claims, including truth claims made about the Bible and its teachings, or about the magisterium and its teachings. The magisterium too is subject to reality, as are our and its assertions about the Bible.

Of course, reality itself is a bit elusive too isn’t it? So is our version of it — and the magisterium’s version of it, which ought to be continually subject to review, to new discoveries and amendments, some of which might undermine, or even overturn, previously held views. I think here of geo-centrism, among many other things.

When we make our way through a fallen world with fallen minds, it is easy to be wrong. That is one of the chief noetic effects of sin. It ought always to keep us humble regarding our conclusions. That might make us uncomfortable, but that is the world in which God has placed us, and we must faithfully pursue our object of knowing the truth in those circumstances.

By: Remember Rollen

Remember Rollen — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:22:48 +0000

MB, I think I understand what you are saying, except for the distinction you draw between what you call “competence,” and I have called “external standards.” I don’t see how this distinction can run very deep. If there is such a thing as philological or scientific competence, then I think we should say that an interpreter of the Bible can be philologically or scientifically incompetent. To say that the interpreter is in these ways incompetent is to say that he or she has failed to meet some standard. But, now, should we say that the relevant philological or scientific standards are themselves determined by what the Bible says, or that they are justified on the basis of the Bible alone? If not, then we should probably say that the standards are external in the sense I describe. This would mean that, although the Bible might be the only religious/ecclesiastical authority, our interpretation by of that authority must be guided by standards external to that authority.

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:04:37 +0000

RR,
The authority of the Bible rests upon the fact it is inspired, that is, comes from the Holy Spirit. It’s authority does not rest on something else, say upon its recognition or non-recognition by some ecclesiastic body or another. The books inspired by God are authoritative whether everyone or no one recognized their inspiration, or whether or not some group or another got the list of inspired texts partially correct, as must be the case with either the Protestants or the Catholics. To know which texts ought to be so regarded is best pursued in light of Christ, seeing which books of the OT He so regarded and by identifying the texts written by those whom He taught or by their closest circle of associates.

By the way, I wasn’t talking about external standards; I was talking about knowledge gained by competence, not by authority.

Best to you, RR.
MB

By: Remember Rollen

Remember Rollen — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:09:36 +0000

Dr. Bauman, I wonder if this would be a fair characterization of your position (in answer to my questions): While the Bible is the only “ecclesiastical” or “religious” authority, there are external standards by which our interpretations of the Bible are to be evaluated. To say that these standards are “external” is to say that the standards are not themselves determined or justified on the basis of what the Bible says, or upon its authority.

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:34:09 +0000

Point (1) is not a value judgment, but an academic assessment of exegetical results. For example, because we know many things about, say, Hebrew history, language, culture, religion and literature that those who helped shape the magisterium did not know, we have been spared some their mistakes. It’s matter of knowledge, of clear thinking, and of careful research, not of ecclesiastical authority. It’s an issue of competence, not values.

This increase in knowledge, this move away from the exegetical and methodological errors embedded in the magisterium, is not the result of appealing to some authority outside the Bible. We can, and we do, know all sorts of historical, philological, literary, and scientific things that do not depend upon something other than the Bible having religious authority. It’s not about authority; it’s about acquiring more and more knowledge, knowledge that aids in our improved understanding of Scripture, an understanding not hindered by the errors enshrined in the magisterium and its purported authority.

By: Remember Rollen

Remember Rollen — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:35:16 +0000

Dr. Bauman, your claim (1) sounds like a value judgment. Is there some “authority,” or justification, upon which it is grounded? Also, suppose that decisions must be made regarding the “categories and methods” you mention in (2), or regarding what is to count as the “truth and insight” you mention in (3). Is there anything that authorizes one decision over another? If so, then can you plausibly claim that it is always only “the Bible alone”?

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 01:31:02 +0000

(1) Better interpretive pluralism than the enforced errors of the magisterium.

(2) “Bible only” doesn’t mean that you must not employ extra-Biblical categories or methods; it means that for belief and practice the Bible is the sole authority. Use whatever tools you should in order properly to understand and apply the teaching of that singular authority. But the tools are an aid, not an authority.

(3)There might be truth and insight outside the Bible, but that is not the same as saying there is another authority.

(4)Be very careful what extra-Biblical tools you employ because many of them are not only unbiblical, they are anti-biblical. Like Barth, I am convinced that pagan Greek philosophy, like that of Plato and Aristotle, are just such tools, and stand behind some of the errors enforced by the magisterium, errors like transubstantiation and Thomistic natural theology, for example.

By: Remember Rollen

Remember Rollen — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:17:00 +0000

I’d like someone to give a clearer statement of Smith’s thesis. Adam writes:

“The conclusion in Smith’s argument seems to be that the Bible alone is not sufficient to bring us to clear, unambiguous answers on whatever topic we might want it to address.”

Does he mean to say that Smith’s apparent conclusion is that there are no crucial topics for which the Bible alone is sufficient to bring us clear, unambiguous answers? (It seems too trivial to say that, for many topics, the Bible doesn’t provide clear, unambiguous answers.) And what is meant by “the Bible alone”? (If we don’t bring anything to the table, we won’t even perceive the Bible alone, much less gain any understanding by it.)

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:40:21 +0000

Thanks, Francis. I’ll take a look when I have the chance.

By: Christian Smith

Christian Smith — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:17:20 +0000

Be sure to see my reply to Gundry in the next print issue of B&C.

By: Francis J. Beckwith

Francis J. Beckwith — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:39:10 +0000

My comment was meant for Anthony. I discuss Scripture and the magisterium in tomorrow’s post over at The Catholic Thing.

By: Francis J. Beckwith

Francis J. Beckwith — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:38:22 +0000

Read my post on The Catholic Thing tomorrow. You can get it through my blog, which you can get to by clicking my name.

It will be up tomorrow.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:15:18 +0000

I fail to see how a magisterium solves the problem of disagreement, except that it elevates a particular viewpoint while silencing others. A magisterium may or may not have the practical consequence of producing a more orderly, uniform group of people who march under the banner of “Protestant.” But if the question we are asking is, how do we figure out the true meaning of the text, then the magisterium is a non-answer (unless God comes down from heaven, hand-picks twelve pastors, and declares that their understanding of the Bible is infallible). Plus, it adds a new layer to the same problem. Because if we can’t agree on what Jesus said, what makes us so sure we can agree on what the rulings of the magisterium mean? With new guidelines come new lawyers, salivating over the chance to argue their perspective on the guidelines.