The unity and truth of Scripture

Posted 26 March, 2003 - 15:50 by Andrew

The second of the three ‘overarching principles of hermeneutics’ listed in Michael Cooper’s essay makes the claim that ‘Scripture is God-breathed and true in all its parts’ and that, therefore, ‘the unity of its teachings must be sought’. My question is: Do we really need to make this sort of unsupported assertion? Is not an inductive hermeneutic more suited to a postmodern theology – ie., we accept that the truthfulness and coherence of biblical teaching can only ever be ‘emergent’ qualities, the product of investigation rather than the presupposition. I don’t see how we can honestly make the Bible any more or less true by our theorizing.

There is a big step of intellectual humility involved in this but also a step of faith: we do not impose truthfulness on the Bible, we allow it to demonstrate its intrinsic truthfulness and worth to us. Should not a postmodern hermeneutic always be reaching across the space between distrust and certainty – a straining for truth? Would this not also allow us to locate truth in the dynamic reading of the biblical narrative rather than in a set of abstracted generalizations?

No votes yet

Comments

Andrew,I don't have too much

by tolthoff - 08/09/2003 - 14:52

Andrew,I don’t have too much to add here because I think you are right about this. We truly accept the authority of the scriptures as we seek it out and observe its impact in our lives. I can say all day that the bible is authoritative and never once read it or really allow it any authority in my life. So my statement does not hold true in the real world because I have never demonstated that fact in my own life. I think it is similar to James’ point about intellectual faith versus a faith that works itself out. It is dead and irrelevant. We do need to continue to strain for truth as you say. It is in the investigating and straining that true growth occurs and thus the authority of the text is demonstated. I wonder if there is a way to harmonize our propositional statements about the truth with a truth worked out? Do they exclude one another? Or, is it all in how we propositionalize? I think at some point to communicate we need to state our beliefs which take the form of some kind of statement (and hopefully in our living but that is not always expedient for those who do not know us well). It may just be that we do this kind of thing in dialogue as opposed to a list of beliefs and presuppositions. Maybe we move people to explore for themselves. I think I may have gotten off the point and started to ramble but this has got me thinking…

Todd, I think you're right ab

by Andrew - 08/09/2003 - 14:53

Todd, I think you’re right about the importance of dialogue - it’s essential that a range of voices from inside and outside the church participate in this conversation. It’s interesting, however, that you have placed the emphasis on the practical truthfulness or authority of Scripture: it is only really true for me if we live it out. My point was slightly different, more theoretical. I’m not sure of the epistemological value of dogmatic statements about the truthfulness (inerrancy, infallibility, etc.) of the Bible. I can demonstrate a real and far-reaching trust in the Bible by seeking to live according to its teachings, but I’m not sure what I achieve by insisting in advance of any sort of philosophical or empirical investigation that it is ‘true in all its parts’. How much of a difference would it make if it were only 95% true?

I see where you are going

by tolthoff - 08/09/2003 - 14:53

I see where you are going now (I think). My point about the practical truthfulness of the scriptures was not that it only becomes real truth if I can demonstrate it. Rather I put trust in the fact that it is truthful and then see to live accordingly otherwise my truth statements are suspect. To the point of making statements about the scriptures in advance of any sort of philiosophical or empirical investigation that it (the bible) is true in all its parts, I think it may be a matter of tone and the rigidness of the dogma. For instance, most people outside Christianity would accept the fact that a Christian would place some degree of authority on the scriptures (how else would they know about Jesus?). Now if I say that you too have to believe this and take it on blind faith, you would be apprehensive. If I say I have come to believe this through my own investigation and why don’t you “come and see” instead of just accept it on my word, there is value in that it starts a process in that person’s life. I think that may be the value in personal testimony instead of indocrination. It engages me as a person instead of belittling me for having it “all wrong.” So I would say it is in how it is presented and the reason for it. At some point we do have to define who we are and why we hold the scriptures so dear as not everyone will jump into a journey of exploration or investigation without knowing the shape of the terrain. Yet we can’t encourage exploration if we rush them to the end and say just believe that the terrain is as we told you and it is the same as if you had gone through it yourself. Does that get at it?

We need to recognize that the

by Michael - 08/09/2003 - 14:54

We need to recognize that the approach we bring to the study of Scripture comes from a particular cultural, social, theological position whether explicit or implicit. We can never truly be absolutely objective in our approach. Thus, we have different hermenutical approaches that seek to investigate the truthfulness and coherence of the Bible and arrive at different conclusion regarding its veracity. Andrew is correct to assert that our presuppositions do not make the Bible any more true just as I would assert that our investigation of it will not make it any more or less true either. It is intrinsically true whether we accept it or not. In this way, my presuppositions are not imposing truth on scripture. They are simply stating a theological position that I take as I approach an understanding of biblical orthodoxy. It is at this juncture that my investigation, however subjective it is, into orthodoxy by applying the principles in the paper results in the acceptance and application of scripture’s teaching in my life. And to a certain extent, it is the working out of the teaching in my life that will raise questions in the minds of those who are seeking.

Michael, what you appear to b

by Andrew - 08/09/2003 - 14:54

Michael, what you appear to be saying is that these five principles guide us in the application of Scripture to our lives and that to the extent that the teaching is genuinely lived out, a ‘seeker’ may have greater confidence in the truthfulness of the teaching. But on what basis do you maintain that the Bible is ‘intrinsically true whether we accept it or not’? And in any real sense, doesn’t that come into conflict with your initial statement that we always approach the study of Scripture from a particular intellectual position?

But my biggest problem is that by stating that the Bible is ‘intrinsically true’ up front we risk short-circuiting the process of understanding. I wonder if you can really ‘interpret’ a text if you rule out the possibility that it might be flawed in some way - the issue here is perhaps not really whether the Bible is true or not but whether we allow ourselves to read it properly. At least I would say that the insistence on intrinsic veracity quickly becomes an insistency on doctrinal orthodoxy, and before we know it we find ourselves having to cut the legs off the Scripture in order to fit it into a Protean bed of doctrinal correctness.

Actually, I suspect that this sort of discussion illustrates the lack of cooperation between biblical studies and theology. The theologian needs the products of exegesis out of which to construct a usable theological system; the exegete, to the annoyance of the theologian, wants continually to return to the literary data and reinterpret them. Perhaps these two activities should not be so sharply divided.

Andrew,

by Michael - 08/09/2003 - 14:54

Andrew,

The idea that the Bible is intrinsically true is not an intellectual or theological claim that I am placing on it. This is a claim that it makes or, more specifically, a claim that biblical authors as well as Christ make of it (of course, this is my interpretation of it :wink: ). I have simply chosen to trust its claim and use it as a starting point for exegesis.

I do not agree that “the insistence on intrinsic veracity quickly becomes an insistency on doctrinal orthodoxy.” Just because the Bible is true doesn’t necessarily mean that my interpretation and formulation of doctrinal orthodoxy will be true as well. This is exactly why I suggest that we need to consult the broader hermenutical community. How has a particular doctrine been understood throughout history and how is it understood in different cultural contexts. Thus, we must still wrestle with issues of intended meaning and contemporary application.

I am not trying to suggest that in our engagement of the postmodern we insist up front that she must believe in the veracity of the Bible. I agree that this will get us nowhere. It is the living out of what we believe that will provide a testimony to its trustworthiness. At the same time, just as Christ opened up the scriptures to the disciples on the way to Emmaus explaining everything that was written about him in Moses and the prophets so we can have the same confidence that the Bible, in all its parts, accurately and faithfully communicates the good news and instructs us in the Christian life.

Our biblical orthodoxy is not going to convert a postmodern. It will, however, demonstrate a unity in Christian beliefs that is in itself a testimony. Our task, in part, is to figure out how to communicate the good news to the postmodern not the totality of our understanding of biblical orthodoxy. Nonetheless, our biblical orthodoxy needs to be lived out in the public forum in a contextual manner as a testimony to the veracity of the Bible.

I am increasingly concerned w

by Michael - 08/09/2003 - 14:55

I am increasingly concerned with the notion of ceding the veracity of Scripture for the purpose of evangelizing the postmodern. The reasons for this are:

1. It is a short step to reconstructing Scripture in terms of the higher criticism school.

2. It is a shorter step to deny the historicity of Jesus Christ.

3. It would appear that in surrendering veracity we must also surrender any notion of illumination by the Holy Spirit, renewal of the mind and imago Dei. It is upon these that we are able to understand, albeit limited understanding, the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Again, I do not see that we need to prove the veracity of Scripture to the postmodern. My proving it will not bring the postmodern to a relationship with Christ. I contend that it is the living out of its trustworthiness in my life that will impact the postmodern.

4. I do not see this modeled in Scripture or at any other time in the history of evangelicalism as a means of evangelism.

Paul’s message to the postmoderns at Athens (if you will allow me to be anachronistic) relies on the content of Hebrew scripture to communicate the truth of Christ’s revelation in a culturally relevant manner. We should explore this further.

5. If we allow for the question of veracity and cede that parts are less true then we must answer the question who decides what is true or not true. This does not seem to be an avenue that the biblical authors and Christ intended.

If anything needs to be deconstructed it would be our theological constructs and not the reliability of Scripture. I would suggest that our reliance on these constructs is at the core of the gulf between evangelicalism and the postmoderns it is trying to reach.

Any thoughts?

A post-Christian Hermeneutic?

by kiwimac - 24/05/2004 - 07:45

I suppose that for me, I begin by asking what parts of the scriptural record make sense. My belief is that God created us with minds to reasons and a conscience to guide us, thus the process of asking “what impacts me as I read this” is, for me, the most important part of interpreting the scripture.

The world-view of the authors differs from my own, their underlying assumptions about the universe are considerably different from mine thus, inevitably, the sense of the scripture for me will differ from the sense of that same scripture to them.

Does that mean that the historic doctrines of the church must be thrown out, by no means, but ISTM, that a continual process of re-envisioning them is absolutely essential for each generation because that process is what enables them to make the scripture ‘their own’, it is that process that makes the written word a living word in their minds and hearts.

In my opinion

Kiwimac

What is a 'post-Christian hermeneutic'?

by Andrew - 25/05/2004 - 16:26

Kiwimac, I would certainly agree with the need continually to re-envision the meaning of scripture, but aren’t there a couple of serious problems with this sort of approach.

1. It makes the interpretation of scripture heavily dependent on the worldview, belief system, values, state of mind, circumstances, of the reader and the reading community. It’s like shooting a rifle with a skewed sight: we need to use our minds not just to understand what we read but also to make corrections for the various biases that are built into our understanding.

2. It discourages us from trying to understand the worldview, belief system, values, state of mind, circumstances, of the individuals and communities that produced the texts. Your argument appears to dismiss the ‘original meaning’ or ‘meanings’ of the text as being too remote from our own world to be of any relevance; but I would want to say that we have to do the hard work of interpreting backwards and forwards between these two worlds. I think if we do this work, the gap will narrow not widen - certainly if we shift from a dogmatic to a narrative framework for constructing biblical meaning.

Perhaps I come to this position, however, because I am not pursuing a post-Christian hermeneutic. What do you mean by that? Is that meant to designate a hermeneutic that is no longer subject to the normal constraints of Christian interpretation? But then what makes the ‘historic doctrines of the church’ worth hanging on to?

Post-Christian Hermeneutics

by kiwiray - 06/07/2004 - 07:31

Andrew,

What I mean is this: The days of Christendom are past, the days when Christianity was the majority belief in Western countries are passing and eventually those who really have no knowledge of Christianity will be in the majority.

How do we as Christians respond to these facts? What do we do to help the emerging post-christian majority of folk understand Christianity?

I think part one of a possible solution is to make Christianity vital today[i], the mechanisms via which we do this are, of course, as varied as people to dream them but I believe that they must all be true to the universe as it is understood now, that is scientifically.

While I know that change in science is the one constant, still nothing we teach as Christians should be incomprehensible to an educated person, we should not attempt to discount evolution, for example, even though we can profitably discuss just how the mechanisms of evolution work.

Now I also agree that I should endeavour to understand the world-view of my 1st century Christian ancestors but I must also recognise that the post-Darwinian, post-Newtonian, post-Einsteinian universe in which I dwell is quite different from theirs.

Eckhardt describes God as [i]Novississimus, that is the “Newest thing that is or can be”, Christians would do well to emulate God, ISTM.

Kiwimac

Michael, thanks for your comm

by Andrew - 08/09/2003 - 14:55

Michael, thanks for your comments. There is a lot to work through there. This is a very inadequate response.

My discomfort with an a priori doctrine of truthfulness does not have to do directly with evangelizing postmoderns. It has to do primarily with how we interpret the Bible. In practice I hold to a very high view of Scripture as a matter of faith, much as you describe. But I am worried about how that personal presumption may distort my reading of the texts. It seems to me, for example, that a strongly conservative position with respect to the truth status of Scripture tends to prejudice important literary judgments about style, genre, literalness, etc. And it’s not difficult to find examples of misinterpretations that have arisen because the primary concern of the interpreter was to resolve some apparent contradiction or discrepancy rather than to understand what was being said.

To my way of thinking, the fear that ceding the veracity of Scripture will put us on the slippery slope towards higher criticism and denial of the historicity of Jesus is indicative of a lack of confidence in the intrinsic truthfulness of Scripture. If the Bible is true, it ought in principle to be able to withstand intelligent critical investigation without having to be shielded behind a doctrine of inerrancy. Of course, critical investigation is not always intelligent: it is often biased, flawed, careless, irresponsible, and so on. But still, it seems to me that there are issues of intellectual integrity at stake here that we have rather blinded ourselves to by our insistence on an unquestionable truthfulness.

I disagree with your point 3. I would argue (I think) that a critical approach to Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit is precisely what is needed. If the Holy Spirit renews the mind to understand the trustworthiness of Scripture, why can he not renew the mind to make judgments about truth and error - which in most cases are judgments about how a statement is true?

I suppose one way to explain my position at the moment is that we have concerned ourselves with the question of truth at the expense of the question of meaning - which I think may bring us to your last point by a different route. In effect, we have subordinated exegesis to apologetics. This needs to be turned around somewhat. My view is that the better we understand the Bible, both in terms of what it is saying and in terms of the forms in which it speaks, the more we will discover a startling and authentic truthfulness. One of the ways in which we come to understand better is by dismantling and rebuilding those same theological constructs that make it so difficult for evangelicals to reach postmoderns.

The question is whether the doctrine of inerrancy, at least as it operates within the church today, is not one of those unhelpful constructs. But if we deconstruct it along with all the others, we do so with the intention of reconstructing it: we do not slip back to the old scepticism but move forward to a new confidence.

We put stabilizing wheels on the bike because we were afraid we would fall off - but there comes a point where you have to believe that you can ride the bike without stabilizers. Otherwise people are going to complain either that we are very poor cyclists or that we have a very badly made bicycle.

Andrew,

by Michael - 08/09/2003 - 14:56

Andrew,

I largely agree with your statement. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming from different perspectives.

It seems that we are not asking what is truth in relationship to Scripture, but what does truth mean to me. I would agree that we must be critical regarding the meaning of truth. However, I would think that no amount of investigation of truth will make truth any more or less truthful. How I understand truth must be critically examined by our investigation of my understanding.

I believe this is best done in the context of the hermenuetical community, both the contemporary and historical communities. In this way, I am trying to answer the question “Is my understanding of the truth statements in Scripture continuous with the understanding of the authors, their original interpreters and other interpreters down through the centuries?”

I understand your concern with the potential distortion due to a strong stance on inerrancy. While I believe that Scripture is inerrant I would agree that we do not need to explicitly state such a doctrine. I think that the guidelines that I outline, to some extent, guard against the potential distortion in that it provides checks for our orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

Andrew says

by Kierke - 08/09/2003 - 14:56

Andrew says
“I don’t see how we can honestly make the Bible any more or less true by our theorizing.”

I completely agree with this especially in what it has to say about realism. Truth is there whether we admit/realize it or not.

“There is a big step of intellectual humility involved in this but also a step of faith: we do not impose truthfulness on the Bible, we allow it to demonstrate its intrinsic truthfulness and worth to us.”

Again I think this is right on. What good would be this truth if it didn’t have a worth to us individually once we realized its relevance?

“Should not a postmodern hermeneutic always be reaching across the space between distrust and certainty – a straining for truth? Would this not also allow us to locate truth in the dynamic reading of the biblical narrative rather than in a set of abstracted generalizations?”

I see what your saying here and I’m glad someone is finally pointing otu a different way (POMO) of interpreting scripture rather than the modern. I would love to here more ideas on what that would look like! Most of what I read on most supposed pomo sites is actually hyper-modern bitterness against certain beliefs, not the hermeneutic behind it.

Kierke, nice comments (well,

by Andrew - 08/09/2003 - 14:57

Kierke, nice comments (well, I like them anyway!). Thanks for joining us. I’ve quoted your last remarks on a new topic.

Procedure for finding the inductive truth of Scripture?

by Spiritboi - 26/08/2004 - 22:55

I wonder if the reason why we accept that the Bible is “true in all its parts” is because many people have already done inductively based work? Even if this has not occurred, what tools do we use for an inductive search? And what are we seeking to demonstrate? Do we need to demonstrate historicity, doctrinal integrity, something else entirely?

Re: Procedure for finding the inductive truth of Scripture?

by freespirit - 25/02/2007 - 02:33

The Bible is true to the person seeking answers to thier problems as a comman social Truth and can be self fulfilling. …_Gods going to send people to overthrow governments and Gods_, so prophets and preachers of the time recruit and teach people the bible like this.

DEUT 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

  But if we feel good and happy we accept peoples beliefs and live with  religions.Kind of like muslims killing other religions .However Muslins in america dont kill and live in peace with the other religions.So truth is only what we seek to find at the moment.Why do people who have been abused or thier lifes have become unmanegable pick up the bible and find a matching feeling start to kill or less?They are a product of the time and  life.What needs to be done is not hiding these truths and admit this is the reason.When we defend the bible and hide these things we will never move forward(Spiritually)

Healthy love develops after we feel secure.

Addictive love tries to create love even though we feel frightened and insecure.

Healthy love is part of the human fabric. They cannot be separated.

Addictive love is highly distilled. We think we can separate “it” from people, whether “it” is sex or romantic intrigue.

Healthy love is unique. There is no “ideal lover.”

Addictive love is stereotyped. There is always a certain type we are attracted to.

Healthy love is gentle and comfortable.

Addictive love is tense and combative.

Healthy love encourages us to be ourselves, to be honest from the beginning with who we are, including our faults.

Addictive love encourages secretes. We want to look good and put on an attractive mask.

Healthy love is satisfied with the partner we have.

Addictive love is always looking for more or better.

.

Healthy love is based on the belief that we want to be together.

Addictive love is based on the belief that we HAVE to be together.

Healthy love teaches that only we can make ourselves happy.

Addictive love expects the other person to make us happy and demands that we try to make them happy.

Healthy love creates life.

Addictive love creates melodrama.

 What is missing is what we find.

Re: The unity and truth of Scripture

by stacy - 30/03/2007 - 23:00

This comment has been moved here.

Re: The unity and truth of Scripture

by matty - 07/05/2008 - 01:20

I find in this approach, hints of a subjective postmodern approach to God and His Truth. While Michael Copper suggests Scripture is absolutely and perfectly true in that it is God breathed, and for this reason, we should and must seek out its truths, Andrew is suggesting that we ignore this inerrancy, and pursue the Bible allowing it to prove its validity as the product of our investigation. I do not disagree with Andrew because when sought out and obeyed God’s Word is an avenue for the riches of God’s Grace to be made known and savored.
However, to study the Bible and allow our own personal investigation to determine its truthfulness is to place God’s truth underneath our own. This is a postmodern theological tendency that strips the Bible of its absolute power and authority and strips God of His Glory as the Almighty Lord of all.
I believe what it comes down to is our motive. In faith we explore and expose ourselves to the teaching and leading of God’s truth, and as we do, 1) we will find God to be faithful, and 2) our faith and trust in His truths will grow. The support that Andrew seeks to provide comes after the truth is sought in faith.

Re: The unity and truth of Scripture

by drew27 - 20/08/2008 - 03:20

That’s all I’m asking, don’t assert something I’m expected to believe by faith (like the bible being the word of God) without demonstrating it satisfactorily. I love it Andrew.

Your Brother in Christ.

Re: The unity and truth of Scripture

by gustavo - 15/11/2008 - 21:08

Just my 2 cents on this

1. The NT writers and Jesus clearly believed the OT “graphe” to be thoroughly authoritative, inspired and reliable. The word graphe is also used of Paul´s letters (2 Pet. 3:15-16). My acceptance of these statements does not keep me from engaging in a serious critical study of Scripture.

However, I also know that every single critical method is partial, flawed, and needs to be relativized apropriately. While the historical critical method with all its approaches and sub disciplines is a child of modernity, reader response criticism, for example, is a child of postmodernism. All need to be deployed with caution. Lets not lose sight, as we do the hard work of Bible study, of what faithful Christians of all traditions have believed about the object of our study, even in creedal statements. To think that theoretical /creedal affirmations of belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture are tying us down unnecessarily, but our critical approaches are liberating us to get to the real meaning of the next, is simply naive, it seems to me. I dont trust myself, or anybody else for that matter, to deconstruct the texts of Scripture with the promise that we will rebuild them again in some way. This applies especially to some proponents of emergence, since neither I nor they know where they are heading!

2. Most interestingly to me, and this is where some of us evangelicals need balance, is the truthfulness and reliability of the ORALLY TRANSMITTED TRADITION that Paul refers to in I Cor 15 (I delivered over to you… that which I also received, that Jesus died for our sins accoding to the Scriptures…”) and I Cor 11:23ff (For I received from the Lord that which I also hand over to you…” Also 2 Thes 2:15 (Hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, wether by word or though our epistles…”)

For Paul the tradition comes directly from God and is to be treated accordingly. We see similar paradosis vocabulary in Irenaeus´Against Heretics, as he corrects gnostic teachings by pointing to the oral transmission of the NT documents which came to his teacher Polycarp directly from the apostles and is in his own day (2nd cent.) being consolidated in a NT canon.

I think a truly evangelical theory of biblical authority needs to take full account of the fact that the first century church did not have (NT) written Scriptures until the 60´s and then only very few. Yet the church was NOT without authority. For Iranaeus a fundamental issue here is the guarantee of authenticity and faithful preservation of the oral tradition and written documents that the bishops of the churches represent. Thats why he takes the time to name the bishops of Rome and other places by name, and their successors from the first century down to his teacher Polycarp in his own time.

So I personally cannot accept a strict “sola scriptura,” and my view is closer to that of the Catholic church in which I grew up. I am not free to claim anything I wish based on “me, MY Bible and the Holy Spirit” without also trying to ensure that what I am believing coheres with 20 centuries of Christian teaching.

Re: The unity and truth of Scripture

by jonswales - 19/11/2008 - 19:19

Hi,
I am interested in the way you (Gustarvo) started your comment.

“The NT writers and Jesus clearly believed the OT “graphe” to be thoroughly authoritative, inspired and reliable. ”

Where is the evidence for this? Was the canon fixed?

Blessings,

Jon Swales
www.ordinand.wordpress.com

Re: The unity and truth of Scripture

by rlongman - 23/11/2008 - 08:29

(1)The scriptures of the Jews of Jesus’ day were in flux, but not to the extent that many biblical critics seem to think. Much of the flux regarding what we would call the “intertestamental books” was with groups that were on the fringe of Judaism or were small in number. There was some variation among mainstream Jews regarding what is now called “the Writings” — but even there, at the very least it seems the Psalms and Proverbs were seen by all as Scripture — and probably Job. They did view their Scripture as the reliable authority about God and about themselves. They stumbled as much in following them as we do today, and in many of the same ways.

(2) The thing to note is that the Pharisaic Jews of His day did not view Scripture fundamentalistically. Their leading rabbis instead relished the opportunity to discuss and dispute the implications of the Torah, and began developing an orally-generated serious dialogue which was eventually put to writing - the Mishnah, followed by the rest of the Talmud. That written dialogue became almost as much a part of the daily life of faith as the Scriptures themselves. There’s good and bad in that; genius mixed with the arcane and the overwrought. Jesus’ running critique of the Pharisees was also in part a critique of their method and results, which in its focus on details lost sight of what the Scriptures were really about.

Bob Longman
http://www.spirithome.com/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.