In another hit piece on Rob Bell, Ken Silva sets the plate by writing “We begin with the most important area which concerns the view of the Bible held by Rob Bell…as you will now see like most Emergents Bell has rejected sola [sic.] Scriptura. This is an irrefutable fact.â€
Of course, to do so Silva must do two things, redefine the historical usage of “Sola Scriptura†and misquote Bell. Ken Silva does not define what he means by “Sola Scriptura†though we can discern his redefinition by his misuse of the term. Historically, “Sola Scriptura†is the belief that “the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.â€Â It’s easy to see that Luther was contrasting Rome’s belief in the use of church tradition in determining Christian doctrine.
In his missive, Silva sights two quotes by Bell as proof. The first is Bell’s denial that “Scripture alone†will answer all questions. Silva also takes Bell to task for saying that biblical interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities and that the more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises. Of course, all these are true… there are questions the Bible does not bother to answer… every interpretation is colored… and the more you study, the more questions it raises. The second quote Silva uses follows his all too often used tactic of leaving out certain parts. Silva quotes Bells thus; “‘It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,’ Bell writes. (Online source, emphasis added)†– ironically, Silva adds emphasis, but fails to use the whole statement. What Bell wrote was “It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says, we must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.” This is, of course, the job of the exegete. It’s easy to dismiss Silva’s sloppy (or devious) use of someone’s words. But with these to partial statements, Silva weaves the conclusion that Bell denies Sola Scriptura.
Given an accurate definition of this Reformation fundamental, it’s also easy to see how Silva misappropriates the term. Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final source of our doctrine and the practices that come from it. No where. That I have seen, does Bell deny this – in fact he’s clear regarding the authority of the Scriptures. What Bell does argue for is a careful use of the Scriptures – of course, when this is done Silva just dismissed it as an attempt to look for loopholes.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
19 Comments(+Add)
well addressed! Ken strikes again. He really has to twist words to get his point across… editing statements, selective emphasis, quoting his own missives as a source for his contentions. It really is rich.
The quotes there from Bell sound very much compatible with Sola Scriptura to me. Not only is Ken’s article an evil and deliberate misrepresentation of a brother in Christ, it is also a lie. If Ken says that he has no questions about the bible, he is lying. If he is saying that his interpretation of scripture is 100% pure and uncoloured he is also lying, not to mention rather arrogant!
Neil,
You did a great job writting this. I read Ken’s article before you put this up and I was very disturbed over it. I told Joe at least he did not call him names but Joe pointed out to me that lying about the man is no better!
Let’s look at the real issue. You use your pounding on Ken as a distraction.
” ‘It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says, we must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.’ This is, of course, the job of the exegete.â€
Bell is wrong. What this quote says is the Bible means whatever we want it to mean as interpreted by the prevailing culture and our own assessment of culture. This is why men take a scripture like Lev 18:22 and say that it only applied in the cultural context of Moses’ day for certain cultural reasons. I have read this argument many times from pro-gay bloggers, and clergy.
I suggest reading Keith Mathison’s fine book The Shape Of Sola Scriptura
http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/customer-reviews/1885767749
Here are three great quotes from his chapter on what is called “Solo†Scriptura, a theology which both Bell ,and those of you here, seem to promote.
http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html
I suggest reading it.
“The doctrine of solo scriptura requires an anachronistic reading of modern conditions back into periods of history when those conditions did not exist.â€
“The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct. On the contrary, they gathered in a council as a body and discerned the truth of the matter. Their decision then was given to the various churches.â€
“Ultimately, the fundamental problem with solo scriptura is the same problem that exists within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox concepts of Scripture and tradition. All of these concepts result in autonomy. All result in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines result in the autonomy of the Church. Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual. Everything is evaluated according to the final standard of the individual’s opinion of what is and is not scriptural. The individual, not Scripture, is the real final authority according to solo scriptura. This is rebellious autonomy, and it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of God.Adherents of solo scriptura have not understood that “Scripture alone†doesn’t mean “me alone.†The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture. The classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura meant that Scripture is the sole final and infallible authority. It does not mean that the lone individual is the one to determine what that Scripture means. Scripture was given to the Church within a certain pre-existing doctrinal context that had been preached by the Apostles for decades. Solo scriptura denies the necessity of that context, and it denies the necessity of that Church. In doing so it denies Christ who established that Church and who taught that doctrine to His disciples. It is rebellion in the name of God against the authority of God for the sake of preserving the authority of man.â€
The Word Alone.
Chris P,
It is apparent that this guy (nor you for that matter) has not done a serious study on exegesis. Almost anyone who has gone through any biblical interpretation class would know that there are basically four steps to interpreting the bible.
1. Figure out what the text meant on the day it was written
2. Analyze cultural, language, covenant, etc. differences
3. Get a general interpretation of the core meaning of the text in light of #1 and #2
4. Apply that meaning to today’s world.
Rob Bell is essentially arguing against the idea that everyone can have their own interpretation and do what they want. I know pastors who literally have the women in the church wear head coverings, take of jewelry before coming in and remain silent through the whole service. And guess what, they took scripture literally. Had this pastor looked at the Corinthian culture and interpreted scripture in light of that, things might be different.
Chris P says:
Chris P is wrong. He creates a straw man of Bell’s meaning to try and tear it apart. What Bell teaches (and what this quote was pulled from) is that we have to understand the original context of the writer, so that we can understand what that context would mean in our context.
Culturally, even tiny things do not always directly translate from one context to another – even when all parties speak the same language. Just as an example, there are $2,000 courses that Europeans and English-speaking Asians take to understand American business jargon – particularly as it relates to bringing in sports terminology into everyday discussion.
In the same way, there are parts of Hebraic jargon that are not simple direct translations, particularly as it relates to understanding of Jewish custom and symbology of body parts and numbers.
As part of his straw man, Chris P then tries to bring in the poor exegesis of pro-gay bloggers and Leviticus (who ignore clear Pauline exegesis on this topic, as well). This dog doesn’t hunt Chris, because it’s not what Bell has said, or is saying.
He quoted Mathison:
defining and condemning the very way he exegetes scripture – as if the Bible fell out of the sky and requires no understanding of the culture in which it was written – Reading the scriptures anachronistically! Thank you for proving my point, Chris P!
I agree – HOWEVER, we have to know who the Judiazers were and what they stood for. THEN, we have to figure out what it was that they stood that was incorrect – so that we don’t make the same mistake. ADDITIONALLY, we need to examine our own practices which might be similar to what was condemned in the Judiazers and make sure that we don’t make the same mistake in a new way.
In the remaining section, I would disagree with your application, as well. This has nothing to do with the authority of man – it has to do with understanding scripture – what God desires. Ken’s slander of Bell, nonwithstanding, you have a very narrow view (which only has room for your opinions AS IF THEY WERE GOD’S opinions).
The only difference between the “Reformed” view you espouse and the Roman Catholic view is that the Catholics have a 1000+ year head start down the same path.
Chris P., so as individuals we are incapable at arriving at a correct understanding of scripture, but when we are individuals gathered together into some form of governing body we are better equipped to do so?
Todd,
Apparently so…the Emergent Church is all about “community” interpretation, didn’t you know? Heading back to Rome…
HAHA! Of course it is done in community. Otherwise there would be no healthy accountability. But you wouldn’t know too much about HEALTHY community.
Ken,
You said
Actually, in many EC churched I am familiar with, it is not about “community” intermpretation – but community understanding of the underlying interpretation – understanding the “WHY” and not just the “WHAT”.
The Reformed churches and their “official” doctrines are much further down the road to Rome than the EC churches will ever be (by design)…
Chris P.
You wrote: “What this quote says is the Bible means whatever we want it to mean as interpreted by the prevailing culture and our own assessment of culture.” In a sense you could say that this is what Bell’s quote says, but only if you ignore the context from which it was taken.
Of course, in ripping a quote out of context, and using only part of it, Silva can make it say whatever HE wants – kinda ironic ain’t it?
Neil
There are two facts in play, both of which are contra to Silva’s argument:
1) applying Scripture to any culture other than the original is the job of an exegete and is exactly what Bell contends should be done.
2) Bell has a high view of Scripture.
Neil
Based solely on the original quote by Bell, I think Neil has hit the nail on the head. Some will try to do whatever logical gymnastics are necessary to condemn him. Where, may I ask, is Bell straying from orthodox Christian belief? I’ve listened to many of sermons and have been impressed with how he presents Scriptures – he certainly seems to to a better job of exegesis than many Fundamentalist pastors I’ve heard. Now you want to see people abuse Scripture and have personal interpretations, you don’t have to go much further than your local preacher on the FM dial. I’ve heard so much convoluted stuff over the years, it simply amazes me.
One more and I’m caught up…
If it is incorrect to make decisions about what the Bible means at this time, in this place, for these people – if applications are fixed regardless of time or place… what is the alternative?
The Old Testament must be read in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The New Testament must be read in Greek.
We must kiss each other when we meet.
We must meet in houses, have full meals together, and serve alcohol.
In other words, if Christians are prohibited from translating the Gospel into other cultures, then we must force the culture to match that of the Bible.
This is exactly what Muslims try to do with cultures, force them into a 6th Century Arabian culture.
I assume this is not what Ken and Chris are advocating.
Neil
“Apparently so…the Emergent Church is all about “community†interpretation, didn’t you know? Heading back to Rome…”
Ironically, the Councils that decided on the Canon of Scripture were a (temporary, task-specific) community of many people representing even wider communities. There was even a lot of “conversation” involved, or so church historians would have us believe.
Hmmm…. “’community’ interpretation” means “Heading back to Rome…”?
I thought Rome was all about one man, speaking with absolute authority while Protestantism was all about decentralized authority.
Looks like the EC is heading even farther away from Rome…
Neil
I love this little gem from a linked article on CRN:
“The idea that the Bible must be “re-interpreted” is one of the most dangerous doctrines in Christianity today. There is only one correct interpretation for each verse of Scripture, and those interpretations do not change over time, just as God does not change. And what does Bell mean in saying that “Scripture alone” will not answer all questions?”
There is only one correct interpretation? (and let me guess, it’s this guy’s interpretation) I suppose this means that most professors at our seminaries should just hang it up, I mean we have all the correct interpretations figured out already. We might as well just give new Christians a commentary with all the “correct” interpretations in it and tell them to go memorize it. I honestly am perplexed how people can live in this litte world they’ve created.
Phil,
I would agree that every passage has only one correct interpretation. But many correct applications. I wonder if Bell’s argument is more about application than interpretation.
The thing that is pretty much ignored by those attacking Bell is his examples about how Scripture was used to advocate slavery – shoot, the seminary I went to used Scripture to deny admission to those who were “Colored” until the late 1950’s… that’s what Bell’s talking about.
And finally, isn’t kinda ironic that what the neo-fundamentalists want is one airtight, never-changing, absolutely static corpus of belief AND method… talk about Romish!
Neil
(OK – I know playing the Rome card is always a weak thing to do…but the irony was just to thick to let it pass)
Neil,
Well I guess the word “interpretation” itself is very loaded. I mean are we talking about a literal word for word translation which is a relatively easy task (and I even say that with reservation), or a translation that conveys the spirit of the text. I think I understand what you are saying, but it becomes problematic when Fundamentalists take things completely out of context.
For an example of what I’m talking about (and I know this is a relatively simple argument), I could say something like “the score of the game is 30-15″. Well, in football that would be a lopsided game, but it could happen. In baseball it would be somewhat unlikely, but it could happen. In basketball, it could easily happen as well and be lopsided. But if I were talking about tennis, it is a very close set. It totally depends on the context, but because we weren’t given the entire context, we have to fill in the details. I think Neo-fundamentalists very much approach scripture with this level of ignorance, though. It’s like they take statements in scripture as if they are just floating around with no background or history attached to them.
So, I guess my point is, yes, I do think we could say that there is only one correct interpretation of Scripture, but for some things we may not know it entirely because we are always there always more to learn about the context and background. I guess I view it as an asymptotic relationship, where interpretation is always approaching the correct view, but never quite hitting it. I think it is the Church’s job to get closer through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I’m also not saying there aren’t things that we have to hold as fundamentals that are unchanging. But to treat every doctrine, and every interpretation as completey right seems like the height of arrogance to me.
By the way, I really appreciate your posts.