homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Do Christians Over-rate the Bible?

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Do Christians Over-rate the Bible?
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IMO Christians are right to esteem the bible highly in their search to understand the nature of God. It seems to me, however, that there are severe limits in scripture's capacity to offer a consistent and coherent interpretation.

The bible's limitations relate not only to minor matters but central themes. For example, the relative merits of Calvinism and Arminianism have recently had an airing in Purgatory, in which both sides have offered substantial biblical support; and arguments over theories of the atonement have been similarly documented from the Good Book. It is difficult not to conclude that in taking respective biblically-based positions the bible is unable to arbitrate between them, and there is a tendency on all sides to ignore or discount texts that are considered unhelpful to a preferred position.

If the biblical text produces such a variety of possible theological interpretations, the question arises as to why one prefers one position, a second another, a third another, and so on. The bible is not its own interpreter, and the Holy Spirit seems to enlighten sincere believers in contrasting ways.

I am curious as to why individuals engage with scripture in different ways, and what interpretative tools and assumptions they bring to it which are independent of the text itself. ISTM that these external tools, for example, beliefs about the nature of the spiritual world, the nature of the natural world, determinism and free will, philosophical notions of God, and the like, provide a framework, often an unconscious one, that both structure our fundamental understandings of God and largely determine our sifting of scripture. Consequently, what we conclude the bible says about the nature of God is determined by our pre-established cultural assumptions. ISTM, therefore, that disputes over scriptural interpretation obfuscate issues that have their roots in extra-biblical considerations, which need to be made more explicit because they might be of more central importance in shaping our spirituality. What say you shipmates?

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good question, Kwesi.

It seems to me, and I keep banging on about this, that it's impossible to simply talk about scripture as if it stood aside from and apart from the traditions within which we approach it. One can still have a high view of scriptural inspiration and hold that.

None of us approach the scriptures in a vacuum. None of us come to them as though we are somehow floating above our particular milieux ... and I would argue that God the Holy Spirit uses that milieux, tradition, framework, call it what you will, as part of the way in which he deals with us.

Which doesn't mean that everything within our respective contexts has a divine imprimatur, of course. God can work inspite of as well as because of these things, as it were.

Not only that, we aren't all agreed as to what constitutes scripture in the first place. For the RCs and the Orthodox it's rather wider than the 66 books recognised by Protestants.

Sure, I recognise that Sola Scriptura doesn't mean nuda Scriptura ... but many Protestants act as if the scriptures floated down from heavy on a fluffy pink cloud and fail to see that their particular readings are coloured by their particular contexts and traditions ... be they Reformed, Wesleyan, Lutheran or whatever else. As if there is a 'plain meaning' of scripture that everyone could see if only they were as intelligent, diligent or biblically literate as they themselves purport to be.

That's the issue I have with the whole Arminian/Calvinist debate. It isn't so much a debate about what the scriptures say so much as what people who belong to one or other of those persuasions claim that they say or interpret them to say.

A Calvinistic interpretation only makes sense in a Calvinistic context, for instance. It makes no sense whatsoever outside of that tradition.

The same can be said for other faith positions within the Christian orbit.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see the Scriptures as narratives of our faith about how God has interacted with his people. These narratives come from similar but also divergent perspectives. They can be seen to have both a unity and a diversity. Because of this I find the idea of the authority of the Bible to be impossible and the concept unconsidered.

It seems that systematic theologies are an attempt to fill a perceived deficiency in the Scriptures.

It may be that some of our theology needs to be propositional, but much of the scriptures record an individual or a community's existential theology or else is narrative theology which may or may not speak to our personal and community experience.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It seems that systematic theologies are an attempt to fill a perceived deficiency in the Scriptures.

I think you're on to something there. The same of course can also be said for creeds or "statements of belief" (creeds that eschew the name "creed").

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It seems that systematic theologies are an attempt to fill a perceived deficiency in the Scriptures.

I think you're on to something there. The same of course can also be said for creeds or "statements of belief" (creeds that eschew the name "creed").
I find creeds/statements of belief to be complex propositions that many would not understand and for which there is likely to be quite divergent understandings. Although they are couched in positive statements their purpose seems to be negative so as to exclude contrary views. The Fundamentals is situated to be against liberal Christianity and already shows its anachronistic situational context.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
IMO Christians are right to esteem the bible highly in their search to understand the nature of God. It seems to me, however, that there are severe limits in scripture's capacity to offer a consistent and coherent interpretation.

I think Christians often don't esteem the Bible enough. Part of why interpretations become so incoherent is that there is a tendency to home in on single favourite verses passed down by tradition, and then base one's interpretation of the seemingly scattergun verses on the tradition, rather than on the Bible. The idea that the Bible is a book to be read – let alone that its authors should be allowed to speak in their own terms – seems to have gone out of the window. I don't have any data, but I imagine if one went into most churches and ask for a show of hands as to who had read the entire Bible, it would be a small minority, many of whom would be being economical with the truth to save face. Please, please, please could we have some more esteem for the Bible?

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The sacred scriptures are rightly venerated but they cannot be understood properly outside the context of the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That makes me think mischievously
"The Tanakh is rightly venerated, but it cannot be understood without the Talmud and Midrash"

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
That makes me think mischievously
"The Tanakh is rightly venerated, but it cannot be understood without the Talmud and Midrash"

For Jews that might well be the case but from a Christian perspective and especially in the context of the OP, it's completely irrelevant.

It's impossible to properly understand the scriptures outside the life of the Church and the proof of this can be seen in every wierd belief and sect that has ever reared its ugly head in the last two thousand years. It is only in the life of the Church, in its practices, its prayer, in its councils and in the lives of its saints thst we truely understand this. This is essentially what Tradition is: the scriptures understood properly through the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The weird sects and beliefs have sprung from the life of the Church, just as the weird sect and beliefs of the church have sprung from Judaism.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"The context of the Church" can itself be interpreted in different ways.
It could be a religious institution that wants to control Bible interpretation, or the Church Invisible (itself with different interpretations) in which the Holy Spirit is bringing interpretation.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That would depend, as so many of these things do, upon ones ecclesiology, of course.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel
quote:
A Calvinistic interpretation only makes sense in a Calvinistic context, for instance. It makes no sense whatsoever outside of that tradition.
Is it your position, Gamaliel, that Calvinists and Arminians, say, cannot engage in any meaningful dialogue because their systems are closed? Or are you only arguing that scripture cannot resolve their disagreements, or provide a basis on which they can engage in dialogue. If the former, then the matter is at an end, but if the latter then the discussion needs to shift away from scripture to more philosophical considerations about the nature of God (assuming his existence); and philosophical and empirical considerations of notions of determinism and free choice.

[At the back of my mind is the question whether or not what Christians present as disputes based on differences over scriptural interpretation have their foundations elsewhere].

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find the OP challenging but difficult to answer.

Somebody once said to me that the positions people take up on Scripture are a matter of temperament rather than truth.

I think there is something in that. Those who are otherwise feeling insecure tend to go for the security of scripture as given. Others feel free to range across a variey of 'possibilities' using whatever aids are available. Biblical scholarship being one among many.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the idea of 'Scripture as given' is a chimera. Communication depends on the receiver as well as the sender. If you do not realise that your understanding of Scripture depends on you, and thus everything that has made you you, then you are lacking a significant self-awareness.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Latchkey Kid:
quote:
If you do not realise that your understanding of Scripture depends on you, and thus everything that has made you you, then you are lacking a significant self-awareness.
Although I agree with your observation, I would hope that self-awareness might allow the discussion to escape the mire of radical subjectivity.

ISTM one needs to separate (a) understanding of scripture and (b) understanding of God.

I think that understanding what scripture says can be treated as a disinterested academic exercise in which students from different theological and denominational backgrounds and none can come to a measure of consensus, disagreeing less on theological than scholarly ones. Catholic and Protestant Commentaries seem to have no problem in recognising the work of each others academics.

The problems arise in moving from what the text says to what it means, what it adds to our understanding of the nature of God, what the relationship is between scripture and theological speculation. It is here that issues of self-awareness become pertinent.

We seem generally agreed so far that scripture contains so many diverse and irreconcilable ideas that while it can support various theological positions it cannot arbitrate between them. Its authority is limited. The problem we are faced with, then, is on what basis can differing theological positions engage or is that not possible.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kwesi said

The problem we are faced with, then, is on what basis can differing theological positions engage or is that not possible.

I think the decisive factor comes with accepting that Jesus is the WORD of God and in the light of the revelation of God in him all things are to be judged.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
..........for which, Shamwari, there is, of course, a relevant biblical text! (Col.2:3 "Christ is the key that opens all the hidden treasures of God's wisdom and knowledge."}
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
...the Holy Spirit seems to enlighten sincere believers in contrasting ways. ...

...external tools...provide a framework, often an unconscious one, that both structure our fundamental understandings of God and largely determine our sifting of scripture.

Although these two statement might seem at odds, I think they do provide the parameters for an issue.

There's no shortage of examples where respected spiritual Christian leaders have come to hold mutually incompatible interpretations of the same texts. This has been an historical problem and has afflicted all Christian denominations that have had more than one leader. It's where the principle of understanding scripture from within a 'Church' context comes to the test; as soon as someone points out just one difference of opinion between two respected spiritual leaders in the same ecclesial context, the principle wobbles.

For me the issue has always been one of validation, particularly in a missional context. It boils down to being able to justify an interpretation in the public arena, using publicly acceptable and available resources. It's all rather Kantian, I know, but if that is where people are at, even in a post-modern context...

In essence it means taking the spiritual enlightenment one may receive, understanding the presuppositions one has, and testing both by seeking to verify them. That might result in reaching a crossroads where one is faced with a choice: whether to abandon a long-held (and possibly cherished) belief based on an interpretation because it does not hold water, or giving into fear of change.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely, Hosts, this is a Purgatorial question?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrw
Shipmate
# 18045

 - Posted      Profile for jrw     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For far too long I (like many people) was a presuppositionalist, although I don't think I asked myself why at the time (which seems very strange in retrospect). These days (by which I mean the last year or so) I approach 'The Bible' (as we call it) sceptically (as opposed to cynically).
Posts: 522 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
... It seems to me, however, that there are severe limits in scripture's capacity to offer a consistent and coherent interpretation.

The bible's limitations relate not only to minor matters but central themes. For example, the relative merits of Calvinism and Arminianism have recently had an airing in Purgatory, in which both sides have offered substantial biblical support; and arguments over theories of the atonement have been similarly documented from the Good Book. It is difficult not to conclude that in taking respective biblically-based positions the bible is unable to arbitrate between them, and there is a tendency on all sides to ignore or discount texts that are considered unhelpful to a preferred position.
...

I would really like to engage in depth with Kwesi's thoughtful post, but regrettably I don't have time. However, I would like to make a brief observation.

I suggest that the tension between doctrines such as Calvinism and Armenianism doesn't show that there is a problem with the Bible, rather that in presenting the tension (or perhaps a better word would be paradox) between the two theological positions, the Bible is accurately representing the true situation. Therefore the problem isn't with the Bible presenting the paradox of the two views, but rather with our expectation that there shouldn't be anything paradoxical about the theological revelation that is contained in it. Thus the Bible only appears to have limitations in fulfilling our expectations of what it should do. If you accept that the Bible presents what is in its true nature paradoxical, then the so-called limitations are no such thing.

Angus

[ 12. April 2014, 21:16: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think you can over-rate the Bible. I think people do wrongly rate the Bible--especially when they go to it to seek ammo for attacking other people, or to support various unsavory intentions of their own. That's not what it's for.

One thing the Bible DOES do a very good job of, IMNSHO, is humbling those who let it. Even the difficult passages--maybe particularly the difficult passages--can remind us that God is God and we are not, and that we still have a lot to learn, and even unlearn. For that reason I really dislike approaches that outright reject uncomfortable stuff in the Bible. Those are likely to be precisely the spots where we can learn something, if we're willing to be made uncomfortable for a while. In other words, if we remake the Bible in our own current mental image, we aren't likely to make any further growth past that image.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think you can over-rate the Bible.

Really? If somebody thought the Bible was more important than the Holy Spirit, that wouldn't be overrating it? If somebody had to choose between saving a copy of the Bible and saving a human life, and let the human die so the Bible didn't get destroyed, that wouldn't be overrating it?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wrongly rating it. The Bible, considered as a physical object, is not worth that kind of sacrifice. And considered as the Word of God, it can't be destroyed--so why is the person in your story worrying?

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Wrongly rating it. The Bible, considered as a physical object, is not worth that kind of sacrifice. And considered as the Word of God, it can't be destroyed--so why is the person in your story worrying?

To give an example of someone over-rating the Bible. I think your "wrongly rating" is a bit of furniture-shuffling to avoid admitting people can over-rate the Bible.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What to the power of ever.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A more useful response, albeit less satisfying to you, perhaps, would be to explain what you see as the difference, and why this is a case of one and not the other. Might take more work than snark does, though, so this is just a suggestion.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I made the attempt once, only to catch snark for it. I'm done.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I made the attempt once, only to catch snark for it. I'm done.

Good. I hope Mousethief is done too.

Moo, Kerygmania host

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools