HT: Verum Serum
A few weeks back, Tim made a comment about ‘Bibliolatry’, which earned him additional hatred (if that’s possible) from the watchdoggie crowd. While I have heard comments to this effect before, it is interesting that since then, I have seen a number of references to this phenomenon in modern Evangelical/Reformed since then.
One author/researcher, J.P. Moreland has written an interesting paper on this subject (warning – deep waters ahead), which can be found here:
How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It
J.P. Moreland argues that sola scriptura involves a commitment to the final authority of the inerrant word of God in all matters, but not to the idea that it is the sole source of moral and theologically relevant knowledge. Just as an archeological dig could discover more information about an ancient city described in the Bible–though we would not accept alleged discoveries that contradicted scripture–so there are three areas where extra-biblical knowledge is available–knowledge of God and morality in the creation, knowledge of the soul and demons by interacting with and studying them, and knowledge of God’s will though guidance in various ways.
Additionally, Christianity Today blogged about Moreland’s recent appearance at the Evangelical Theological Society conference in San Diego. Surprisingly (or maybe not-so-surprisingly), it seems that there are strong opinions on this subject.
Here is a direct link to the paper. Happy light reading…
![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")
32 Comments(+Add)
I almost posted this, then decided I didn’t want the headache of correcting the stream of lies about me sure to come from the watchdoggies.
Everything must work out from the Scriptures. His reference to evangelicals learning from our Catholic friends is again very dangerous. Instead of addressing the sola scriptura crowd’s ignoring much of the practical verses they say they espouse, this writer is headed down a very dangerous and mercurial path. If the Scriptures do not teach it then he assumes spiritual truth can be gleaned by HUMAN EXPERIENTIAL OBSERVATION. With that equation absolute authority would lie with the subjective human opinion.
The Bible is the tree upon all other ornaments must hang.
Did you read the paper, Rick, or just the comments on the CT blog which wrote about things he didn’t say?
Tim – maybe it’s good I posted this, then, since I’m not a pastor or “studying at the feet of” any of the ODM’s whipping-boys…
I read the paper and although he claims a strong belief in inerrancy he questions how that manifests itself practically. I can never be accused of an entrenched Calvinist, but we must be careful about the chronology of incorperating natural truth gleaned from personal observation into a Scriptural understanding.
The Scriptures must be the foundational authority around which all other truth finds a home. He mentions exorcism and says that we can ;earn how to do it by practice since the Scriptures are not specific. That is the path that leads to subjective error regardless of how well meaning. I did not read the comments you referenced.
BTW – did I understand correctly that the university he spoke at had just had their president convert to Roman Catholicism?
I believe so… I don’t hear of that too often, as it seems to go the other way more often than not…
At the basis, his premise is correct, though – it is only if taken to an extreme (like the opposite extreme, which he is addressing) that it becomes a problem.
For example:
We have the writings of Josephus because the same monks who copied the books of the Bible also copied his works to preserve them, as well.
While I would never argue that Josephus’ works are inspired, there are a huge number of details he goes into from which we can learn details behind what we read in the gospels and the epistles. Yet, when you quote Josephus in showing context behind the scripture (for instance, in showing the debates between rabbinical schools and why Jesus was brought into the debates on “who is my neighbor” and divorce), all sorts of folks will crawl out of the woodwork crying Sola Scriptura! because you’re ‘interpreting’ scripture with sources apart from scripture.
Hogwash.
I would say Scripture is the plumb-line.
Prima Scriptura, say I.
Sola…is really a pipe dream.
BECAUSE….
The moment you say, “I did X,Y,Z because I felt the Lord leading me to…” OR “The Spirit led me to just…” OR “Beloved, it seems good in the spirit…” OR “O, faithful ones, I say in the Lord…”
You’ve just laid the SOLA aside for a PRIMA.
Prima is where I think people function in reality (de facto).
Sola is a theological claim that unfortunately has become a weapon in the hands of those who desire to codify “their interpretation” of the authoritative text.
If we posit Scripture is the highest authority, then whoever wins the battle over interpretation, in reality, becomes the highest authority. Doesn’t mean Scripture is a problem, it just means we need to be honest about what humans bring to it. (Unless of course, you’re dialed in to the non-rational mothership of certain Christians who believe logic and reason are a sign of a lack of saving faith.)
Disclaimer:
If anyone, anywhere, says I deny the authoritative nature of Holy Writ, then be advised you are a liar and all applicable legalities and pursuant penalties will apply. Possible penalties could comprise of the following: One to Three less floor(s) on your heavenly mansion, a significant decrease in jewels in your crown(s), house arrest in said mansion for a term to be determined by Pope John Paul II who you didn’t think would be there in the first place, forcible spam ingestion, worshipping with the 4 and 20 elders from movie theatre style seats in the back, and sitting next to Tim Reed, Erwin McManus, Rick Warren or Mark Driscoll for the first 6 millenia at the feast of the Lamb.
The example you give is even used by men like MacArthur. But many will not be so careful and abuse and subjectivity can easily find a way into interpretation. But Moreland goes further than your example, he incorperates human observation and understanding outside Scriptural parameters as a viable conduit for spiritual truth.
That puts more than the camel’s nose inside the tent.
I would say that the far more dangerous aspect of Christianity is that many Christians are largely ignorant of the scriptures. Many are familiar with the most popular Christian books and authors who tend to piecemeal things together to prove a point, but when it comes to the Bible there’s more ignorance that idolatry.
For a personal example the other day, I was conducting a bible study at work… one of ladies in the study, who has been a Christian for 4-5 yrs, couldn’t find the book of Timothy and had to use her table of contents. I don’t say this to be self-righteous or look down on her, but I think it adequately highlights a problem out there today.
I’ve never used the term (and never even heard of it until reading a couple blogs) of Sola Scriptura personally. That being said, once you get into all the subjective nonsense being promulgated today, you end up going down a very slippery slope.
Living for Christ isn’t overly complex, and all the “doctors of the law” who try to make it so more often end up leading people astray.
Very funny nc, the only part I disagree with is that JP II will not be there. No one gets to heaven by works, Tim should be thankful for that!
I believe what Moreland is getting at is that there seems to be an attitude prevalent in many Evangelical circles that “if it’s not in the Bible, it’s worthless”. Granted, people don’t usually say this outright, but I definitely see it’s effects.
I don’t know how many people I know who were talented in some area but gave it up to go to Bible College. I’m not saying everyone who goes to Bible College or seminary is like this. I know some people are genuinely called, and that some are even called to sacrifice “secular” careers. I think though, that there are a lot of people who live with a sense of guilt by working “secular” jobs because they grew up in a church environment that said they are only valued if they are in “full time ministry”. I’ve seen this quite a bit.
If we have the idea that Scriptures are the sole source for all real spiritual knowledge, and we want to be committed Christians, it gives us little incentive to pursue excellence in areas of science, engineering, medicine, etc. I’ve heard several students use the phrase “it’s all gonna burn, so it doesn’t matter”. They have really been fed the idea that dedicating themselves to whatever area God has gifted them in is wrong. I don’t think churches are intentionally doing this, but it’s what happens.
You have no idea.
Oh I’m sure they’ll come up with something.
As a lover of especially delicious irony I just find it hilarious that they claim the sola scriptura ground when so much of their “theology” (its not the -ology I question, its the theo) comes from extrabibical sources. Just look at this quote taken from Ratliff’s sidebar:
When you start writing equating the Gospel of Christ with what is essentially a commentary on the scriptures its probably time to stop pretending that the scriptures are in anyway authoritative, or even primary in shaping your thinking.
That statement is at odds with the statements about humility. Mike should remove it since it openly assumes supremacy and disdains me as somewhat of an unbeliever just because I do not ascribe to Calvinism.
It isn’t Calvinism that makes me stumble as much as it is Calvinists.
Rick,
Although I would have to say I strongly disagree with your Theology from what I have seen here in my admittedly infrequent visits, I very much appreciate what you said about this post further back in the dialogue.
Scary stuff when you think about it.
Now, I know there are extremes–on both sides. But honestly, of the scholars I know, the pastors I know, the wise men I have been blessed to know, etc. in my own experience, none have said that further perspective and understanding cannot be gleaned from other sources. That being said, they refer to sources that, to best ability of the authors, are themselves attempting to be true to Sola Scriptura.
I read Luther and I agree with much of what he said–I also disagree with much but only when Luther deviates from Scripture. I read Calvin and the same thing happens; likewise with Spurgeon, and so on.
The question is not “what do these things or people say about the Word?” It is “what does the Word say about these things”
And nowhere are we authorized to learn about God from interacting with demons and other such nonsense.
That’s my take, thanks
Sorry, it sort of looks like I am quoting Rick in that last comment. Once you read further, I hope it is clear otherwise.
What’s striking to me today in evangelical/fundamentalist circles considering the ignorance of the scriptures combined with an idolatry of them:
the word “unbiblical” really means: “I don’t like it.” OR “I don’t agree”.
I had a church board member not like the way I characterized/described my feelings about a situation during a board meeting.
He proceeded to tell me it was unbiblical.
I asked him to demonstrate how so…he couldn’t.
He learned very quickly to not try to manipulate people with theologically laden terms designed to manipulate.
It’s like certain charismatics/pentecostals using the term “annointed” when they really mean: “I like _______” or “I enjoyed that song/sermon/whatever because it moved me”.
I just don’t think we take seriously the tendency of people to try to dominate others. When people start using the term biblical, etc. as a hammer they’ve demonstrated their commitment to a bad theology expressed by what they do.
Because we “do” what we really believe.
n.c.,
I think you’re on to something there. There definitely does seem to be a lot of abuse of authority in the Church nowadays. It is just our fallen nature to try to dominate people rather than serve them.
NC,
What you’ve described is exactly the methodology of the watchdoggies, the vast majority of their reasoning is exactly that.
I feel it comes down to this:
Do we let Scripture shape how we see the world around us (not “the world” like the many Christians use the term, but just ‘existence’), or do we let our experience in this world shape how we read and understand Scripture?
I think those are mutually exclusive, you can’t have them both at the same time, and I think the latter is a terrible approach to the Word.
And just for good conversational measure, I think like nearly all things, the Bible can become an idol if used improperly. I dont know who said it in the comments on another post a while back, but they said something like… the Bible being our idol is like being more interested in the resume of the person rather than the person himself.
I would agree with that statement, and I see this happen often.
Disclaimer: If anyone takes this to mean I mean that people should not read and study their Bibles everyday, you are wrong.
LoL
Love, Joe
Where I see Biblical pride is when people say they love their doctrines, or when they say “You have arguments – I use the Bible. All my points come from Scripture!”.
Some people, especially from the reformed group, equate their doctrines with Scripture. That is idolatry.
Joe said:
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t see how we could ever truly live in a way in which our experience in this world doesn’t shape the way we view Scripture. We are all born into a certain culture, and those experiences shape our worldview, whether we know it or not. I think the best we can hope for is to realize that our worldview is different from the authors of Scripture, and try to find out about ours.
One example I would give is this (and I admit I’m stealing this from Rob Bell) – the people who wrote Scripture and the first audience were not writing from a position of power. They were largely the underclass and minority. It is hard for most Americans to even begin to really understand this. Even the poor in America are wealthier than 95% of the world’s population.
I’m not saying that we need to resort to a postmodern relativism. I’m just saying that a pure objective view of the Scriptures is something that seems out of reach. I do agree though, that we need to approach them in humility with the expectation they will change us.
Phil,
That’s very insightful, and I do not disagree. I know that my upbringing will shape how I view Scripture. Let’s remember though that we as Christians have the Holy Spirit, the Teacher, to show us. That is why I believe all real Christians will have all the same core doctrines, 1st order doctrines that is. And if there is a Christian who is uninformed (think of the 3000 on the day of pentecost, were they told Jesus is God Incarnate on the day they believed and were saved?) I think that Christian will submit to these core doctrines, because of the Holy Spirit.
We need to remember the human influence on Scripture, written in personal writing styles, perspectives, and upbringings of the authors. We also need to remember we have these slants too. That doesn’t negate the divine nature of Scripture, or it’s inerrancy, but unless we acknowledge that God used sinful men, with their various views and biases to speak His Truth, we will warp our view of Scripture ever worse and worse.
Notice though Phil, in my first comment, I didn’t say that we could or would totally ever remove our experience from how we interpret Scripture, but that I think it should become less and less, if possible, as I don’t think using our experiences to interpret Scripture is a good idea at all. We may do well to read Scripture as a 1st century fisherman might read it. Historical…grammatical….Right?
Our experiential bias must become less, and Scripture must define how we see the world more and more.
Joe
Joe,
I dunno.
I think the reader always brings things to the text.
Social location is inescapable.
I think it’s a matter of reading with a chastened self awareness that we bring a perspective to the text and it does affect our reading of it.
There are 3 insights from the major movements in western thought.
Pre-Modern: Meaning is above the text.
Modern: Meaning is in the text.
Post-Modern: Meaning is before the text. (The reader brings meaning to it out of their location/experience/etc.)
To harden any of these categories doesn’t recognize the dynamic ways we humans engage the Scripture.
The ODM”s etc. tend to tantrum that EC or “pomo” folk think you can read anything you want into the text. OR categorically deny any clarity to the text.
This is the extreme reaction to very nuanced understandings of knowledge that are being presented by the EC.
And has not, to my knowledge, ever been advocated for by the EC. Only attributed to them by armchair “researchers” who should concentrate on teaching N.T. at their school, or kickstarting their songwriting careers, or caring for the 4 people in their flock.
Anyway,
None of the three things above are moral statements.
They are phenomenological statements describing reality and the particular emphasis of each “era”.
The beauty of today is that we can draw from all three to have a holistic theory of knowledge.
It shouldn’t be threatening.
And if you don’t agree it doesn’t mean you’re more faithful or orthodox.
You just have a different theory of knowledge.
That’s not a doctrinal issue.
It’s obvious this stuff already happens even with the ODM’s.
Isn’t it fascinating how their understanding of biblical issues makes the bible out to be this fantastic endorsement of North American middle class social respectability? And to think! 2000 years AFTER the construction of the canon!
What a co-inky-dink!
I hope you get my point… =)
Disclaimer:
This post in no way indicates that I am a relativist, believing everyone can elevate post-modern readings as the supreme way of engaging scripture. To claim otherwise makes you obtuse on a good day and a bald faced slandering dirty thing at worst–which is probably most days for some. Juuuuuuuuuuust Kidding!!!!! But seriously. Don’t lie. I’m no relativist. Eat spam! And if you really, really, really need to find some material for a smear site, then I guess I’ll just believe the best. You have a need. Go ahead and lie anyway. It’ll be my way of serving you toward a sense of purpose for life and true devotion revealed in your perpetual anger. Amen and Amen.
Also:
Re: “postmodern relativism”.
That’s a hard postmodernity that very few people actual advocate in general.
n.c.,
I always found the term “hard postmodernism” sort of an oxymoron.
Anyways, yes, that’s what I was trying to get at in a round-about way. We have to believe that the author had a reason for writing. He had something he wanted us to know. How well that comes through in the text is where the debate comes into play.
Maybe I’m postmodern after all…
Best post and comments section on this blog, ever.
NC, in particular. Excellent.
I’d give you some candy if it were possible. And not creepy-sounding.
This post explains a lot of the action/reaction and discord that caused this blog to be created and illustrates what goes on in the comments section of it.
I’m going to have to think more about this and blog it myself.
creepy internet voice…
Hey little boy. Want sum candy?!?!?
Disclaimer:
This comment is not to be construed as making child kidnapping and other forms of abuse of minors as trivial or something to be laughed at. Any attribution of said perception to the ECoD is purely fictitious and slanderously reaching. Further, any construal of inappropriate relating between this commenter and any other commenter is also categorically denied and assertion to the contrary is slanderous, manipulative and generally a really crappy move.
No candy for you now.
Disclaimer:
NC is funny but this is not to be interpreted as him having a lack of inherent ability to be sober-minded and serious. Furthermore, if you don’t think NC is a Christian because of his comments in this forum, you’re snarky. You might even possibly be Snark-O-Tron, the Leader of the Snarkicons.
Disclaimer:
This comment is protected under the Snarker/Snarkee confidentiality. Any reading of this comment will be viewed as a lapse in Christian ethic, no matter how absolutely ridiculous it makes me seem.
Wait!
I thought I got the “snarktastic” title because I called it with regards to Steve Camp last week…
which, by the way, garnered an email from Pastor Silva.
By the way, Joe C…I appreciate your disclaimer.
=)
nc-
“If we posit Scripture is the highest authority, then whoever
wins the battle over interpretation, in reality, becomes the
highest authority.”
Is this a bad thing? Some argue that Christ was not born of a virgin. Others say that He was. Both are using scripture to prove their points. Some say that Christ wasn’t God. Some say that he was, again both using scripture.
The truth will always win. Thus “whoever wins the battle” would be the one who has truth. Thus those who are in truth would “have authority” as you say it.
Isn’t this what you want, for the ones who are right to be in authority?