I do believe in one sense in sola scriptura and I do believe in the authority of the Bible. But I don't think it is so simple as that. I think sola scriptura was a useful thing in its time (fighting the abuses of church authority and the oppressive measures of holding church rites over people's heads in a manipulative way because they felt they needed those things for salvation). But I'm not sure how useful or helpful it is now.
There is no such thing as sola scriptura, really. It didn't show up from outer space or appear in a vacuum sealed tube. It came in the Church and is passed on in the Church and is heard and listened to in the context of an interpretive community and always with the aid of reason and experience.
Which leaves us asking about authority. But the Scripture itself points to Jesus as the authority, so that's sort of a no-brainer isn't it? Except He isn't really here in the same way the Bible is. I do believe that the Bible is our "norming norm" (Grenz) of all those other potential authorities mentioned above. They work together within Christ's authority as a witness to him. Clearly Scripture is the best and most reliable one we have.
As for infallibility, I have a hard time understanding how words themselves can be infallible. I do think the Bible a reliable and true witness and that it is sufficient. All that doesn't diminish but exclaims how amazing it is. It is this living and active presence of God to us, it is a gracious miracle of God's communication to us, and is as sacred a thing we have.
Even though we do not have the originals, it has been a point well made that we probably have something better: enough ancient documentation to piece together a 99.8% degree of accuracy of what the originals said without giving us the chance to be idolaters of some 2000 year old parchment (we have enough bibliolatry today as it is). I think the very transmission of the text into our hands is something of a miracle befitting the way God wanted us to get it (through Church participation and through sincere effort and collaboration). We can't read the Scriptures without entering in some way (even unconsciously) the dialogue of thousands of years. That's awesome.
I do feel that I encounter God when I read the Bible. I look to it as the standard bearer for truth, and consider it the book of books. It is a gift from God. I do not want to say it is fully human and fully divine (because it is neither a human nor a god) but as a descriptor I think it has those connotations. It is the Word of God in human words; the best ones possible. As words, they require Spirit, church, reason, and experience to understand and live.
This is our best and most reliable witness to Christ. I think translators (into other languages) are doing some of the most important work around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well here's one question. Since I live in the world of biblical studies I hear an awful lot about "earliest forms" and "oral traditions" and such. Mostly these are attempts either to get to something like what you mention when you talk about original editions, or 99.8% accurate reconstructions (how, by the way, can we possibly come up with that number seeing as how we don't have any of the originals at all? and wouldn't know it if we did for that matter), or attempts to get at the real historical realities behind those real historical texts.
To some degree I understand this. What actually happened is, indeed, important. But if we believe in some kind of illumination (the idea that God has kept the truth in the Scriptures throughout all of history) then why is the most original form the best? Are the work of editors and copyists illigitimate and not-inspired? Some of Paul's letters were probably written by a professional scribe to whom Paul was dictating. Are those less inspired since Paul didn't actually write them?
For that matter, I guess, what is inspiration and how does it work? Perhaps you're right to say that words can't be inspired. Any other thoughts?
Good question on inspiration, Colin. I have been thinking lately that for some of the reasons you mentioned, we have to shape our understanding of "inspiration" to include more than just the "superintended" writing of the original manuscripts. Namely, inspiration seems to me to be best understood to encompass God's sanctification of texts as chosen witnesses to his revelation in Jesus. This election/ sanctification includes the entire process of the texts' formation and transmission to be suitable witnesses. 'Inspiration as sanctification' seems to fit well with how the Nicene Creed includes a statement on Scripture ('spake through the prophets') under the third article, the Holy Spirit, rather than as a preface to the whole.
My question is what you (Jon) mean by "norming norm" and how this notion works in relation to your comments on sufficiency and other authorities?
i think the 99.8% thing i read in the front of the greek new testament, and it is just saying how much of the text is actually in question, based on comparing the different documents. that's pretty incredible.
as far as inspiration goes, i don't have much problem seeing inspiration as a dynamic thing that takes place over time using a number of people and contexts. i think redaction criticism goes overboard at times, but i don't think it a threat to inspiration. the question for me becomes How inspired is the Spirit's work AFTER the text was written? i do think that illumination after the fact is different than the inspiration that brought it to its current state. i hadn't really thought of it in the terms dustin is describing as something that continues on into the transmission process. i would call that providence rather than inspiration, but i think we're talking about the same thing.
i didn't say words couldn't be inspired, i said they couldn't really be infallible. that's a very very differen thing.
i like "norming norm" because it speaks to a height of authority slightly above the rest but doesn't use that loaded word. i also like it because it says the same thing as a verb and a noun. i do think that the standard and authority the Bible carries is a dynamic one, while also being a fixed thing. make sense?
how do you all make sense of these things?
Post a Comment