The Bible as 'sacrament'?

Where is your evidence for this?

These are non-essentials, for the most part (though some would consider the literal 6 day creation essential). When I was talking about doctrines, since you brought up that term, I was speaking of the essential doctrines of the faith that we are taught in the NT to cling to.

It seems that on these threads, one should clarify which doctrines they are speaking of.

 

Marcia,

I think I mentioned in the post that the essential doctrines speak for themselves:

"Scripture unquestionably affirms a divine Jesus, a real death for our sins, a bodily resurrection, and a promised second coming. We as evangelicals feel the need to "protect" these doctines by insisting a literal interpretation - but these are true no matter what!"

That to which I refer is the fact that most believers are afraid to get out of their comfort zone. And I'm not sure how one would "prove" this. Come to a baptist church here in WV. You find that nearly everyone believes in a literal 6 day creation, eternal security, premilennial rapturism, etc. Most, IF they have read on these topics, have read only simple books by those in favor of these positions.

Now I'm not saying these things are bad - I'm, saying there is a tendency to view scripture as untouchable, something not to be overanalyzed.

While this is not bad in itself it can lead to a near "sacramentalization" of scripture. The only real example of a problem here (that I've seen) involves some of the Bereans. I've encountered posters here (who are not here anymore) who were so militant about literal scripture interpretation that they CLEARLY violated the SPIRIT of scripture. Our Bible is NOT a Mosaic Torah that justifies us - for we have a new high priest, and the Holy comforter that lives within us.

I think this is the essence of what Matt was initially saying.

 

Well, I have no problems in analyzing scritpure and I guess my church is different from yours, as no one I know has problems with it, either.

The word "untouchable" bothered me because I was not clear on what you meant. I am assuming you mean not to analyze it. But I find when I do analyze, it does not threaten me or anything of importance I believe in. I have found that some things I held wrongly were wrong (like certain verses taken out of context or applied wrong) but discovering this only made the passage make more sense to me.

 

Matt,

I agree that the "the plethora of interpretations which we have just here on BB” are “wholly unsatisfactory.” I agree that the Bible is not be sacramentalized (is that a word?) or worshipped. I do not agree that we can depend on our perception of “truth” through personal experience or worship ABOVE the clear words of the text! I disagree strongly with this notion! If I have misread your intent, I apologize, but I do not think I am off base here.

There must be an authority, period. Yes, God is the only ABSOLUTE authority, agreed. But He has also given us the written Word as a clear expression of Himself and His truth. The Living WORD was the “the brightness of His Glory and the express image of His person”, yet, the Living Word is no longer among us in the flesh. He has given us His written Word as the standard to determine what is truth and what is error. IMHO, it is a serious mistake to lean on ethereal subjective perceptions when we have concrete objective statement contained in the written Word.

Regarding the subjectivity of the various interpretations of that written Word let me just offer this: When two views of a passage are postulated and those views are in strong divergence, one, or perhaps even both of those views are wrong! Scripture cannot have two divergent meanings! The presence of such an “unsatisfactory” “plethora” of interpretation is NEVER going to be resolved by moving toward greater subjectivity! THEREFORE, I SUGGEST THAT A CONTEXTUAL LITERAL GRAMMATICAL HISTORICAL HERMENEUTIC IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESOLUTION TO THE DILEMMA!!!

Let me also respond to this – you said, “plus the fact that fundamentalists seem to add to that that only adherence to their literalist interpretation ensures continuing salvation”. I do not say this – in fact I find this to be contrary to the commonly held position of salvation by grace through faith, plus nothing and minus nothing! The phrase “ensures continuing salvation” implies a deviance from the OSAS (once saved always saved) position that is generally acknowledged to be a distinctive of the Baptist faith. It is not a unique distinctive, in that others who are not Baptist hold to this as well, but I find your suggestion to be contrary to generally accepted fact.

 

Matt,

I do not have a "canned" explanation of CLGH, but have needed to prepare one. AND, the Contextual part is an element that I have added to the more common LGH hermeneutic, though it is most certainly assumed by most. I have needed to write this out both for others and to more precisely define my own statement of my hermeneutical approach. This will be a great chance to do that! Hope to be done by this evening.

 

Matt,

Am quite familiar with Keith Mathison! Did not read the article yet, but when I saw the link I immediately wondered if it was Keith. A quick shift/click resolved the question. I have thoroughly chewed on his “Rightly Dividing the People of God”. My review was not all that positive. One of our elders wants me to go to the Ligonier conference this Spring, do not expect to though. Look forward to evaluating this link as well. Will consider his article in my response.

 

Matt,

Contextual Literal Grammatical Interpretation - What it is not and what it is

Is NOT wooden literalism, as some have alleged, that fails to acknowledge that there are indeed figures of speech and other literary devices used in Scripture.

What do I mean by my terms?

Contextual – the Bible must be interpreted in context. A passage must not be wrested from the context to be used as a “proof text”. Whatever meaning we assign to a passage must be consistent with the immediate, near, and far contexts. The interpretation must fit the context of the verses immediately surrounding the particular passage under consideration. The interpretation must be consistent with the section of the book in which it is found. It is wrong to take a verse out of Deuteronomy and make wholesale application to Gentiles in the Church, the body of Christ. There are some sections of Scripture that are for us, but not specifically to us. The interpretation must also be consistent with the whole of Scripture. Any interpretation that is out of line with the whole of the Word of God is out of context!

Literal – the words of Scripture are to be understood in a normal sense according to the literal meaning of the word unless there is a clear reason for taking the words in a different sense. The oft repeated maxim is “if the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense”. I would further qualify this by saying that unless a literal sense is nonsense, the literal sense is the preferred sense. Further, if the literal sense is nonsense then a non-literal sense must make sense. (Some may need to read this carefully a few times to understand my point.)

Grammatical – the words are to be understood according to their use at the time of writing to as high a degree as can be determined. It is recognized that some words are more obscure and that a definition of words that occur infrequently in Scripture and in ancient literature is less precise than words that are common. It is also recognized that word meanings change with as languages develop. The word “gay” as used in our culture today carries a different meaning that it did 30 years ago. As much as possible the meaning and the weight of a word must be determined from its use as of the time the Scripture was written

Historical – it must be understood that ALL of Scripture was given at some point in recorded history, even if the Biblical record is the only record. As much as possible, the words of Scripture must be understood in light of the historical setting in which they were written. This is not to suggest that the Bible is not relevant to modern society, it most certainly is, in my judgement. Rather, this is a recognition that if we are to make the Bible applicable to our day and age it is often necessary to have a better understanding of the day and age in which it was given. Paul’s instruction regarding the “head covering” is given in light of a particular cultural setting, nonetheless, it has relevance for us today.

I would note that it has become popular in some circles to assign sections of Scripture as a particular type, or genre of literature. I would argue that these assignments must be understood in a CLGH manner as well. For instance, when Micah announced that Bethlehem in Judah would be the birthplace of the Messiah, he was not suggesting that the Messiah come from a small town “like Bethlehem” but that Jesus would be born in the actual town of Bethlehem. Some have used the cover of “prophetic genre” to deny the clear words of the text. Fulfilled prophecy must serve as a standard by which unfulfilled prophecy is measured.

Regarding the differences of interpretation that must be acknowledged to exist – if there are two divergent interpretations, they cannot both be right. One, or both, must be wrong, as noted in an earlier post.

PLEASE LET ME ADD THIS CAVEAT! This is a “first writing”. I have not pondered on the precision of my words for weeks, months, or years yet. I did go back and reread it though! I fully expect that I will find wording that is less than precise and that there are some weaknesses in my presentation. It is finished, for now, but it is not final.

Check your PM box for my initial thoughts on Mathison’s article. Decided not to post on an open thread.

Will say this though, Acts 15 is not an example of theological authority being vested in the church. It is an example of Apostolic authority affirmed by the church! Mathison’s argument that “the church” must be the authority for interpreting the Word of God would render the reformation meaningless! His own words that Scripture is the “final authority” to some degree refutes his own thesis! Will give a full critique of the article in a PM as time allows.

 

Matt,

I could be wrong, but in my brief look at the article last evening I understood Mathison’s “solo” as a slam on what he calls the “evangelical doctine of solo scriptura”. In paragraph 2, he calls the evangelical position a “drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura”. In light of some later comments in the article in which he challenges the autonomy of local churches, I further believe the “solo” to suggest that those who hold a position that is divergent from his are standing all alone in their error. There may be many evangelicals who hold the same divergent position, but as far as the reformers go, these alleged “new” ideas are way out in left field (is that a US English colloquialism, or is it used in UK as well?). Hence the “solo”. Based on his correct use of “sola” in some places in the article, this is my understanding of his use of “solo”.

Re his implication that “the church”, by which I assume he means those who are fully reformed in all aspects of their theology, is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted and understood I note your observation that this would leave us all still under the authority of the RCC! As I read his article last evening I about jumped out of my chair at this! This is in essence not a critique of what he suggests is a “drastic alteration”, but it is a challenge to the very principles upon which the reformation was based!!!

If “the church” is the authority, then Luther, Calvin, et al were all guilty of the same practice for which Mathison is blasting the evangelicals!

I see no alternative here. Either the Word of God is the final authority, or it is not. Does it share authority with the opinions of the Early Church Fathers? or with the church of the middle ages? That was the essence of the reformation – sola scriptura – Scripture alone is the final authority! He attempts to create a false dichotomy between “final authority” and “only authority”. His attempt fails, IMHO! Ultimately, in the final reduction, there is no substantial distinction between “final” and “only”.

If our interpretations of Scripture are to be tested, verified, and either approved or rejected on the basis of church tradition (which he suggests is a good thing), THEN the authority is no longer Scripture alone. It has then become Scripture PLUS tradition! I VEHEMENTLY OBJECT TO THIS IDEA!!!

It is flawed at a foundational level! If the ultimate authority is Scripture PLUS tradition this begs the question of “who’s tradition?”! He has, in all essence argued that the whole reformation is a non-event! That is the logical end of his argument! Problems? You betcha.


Re 1Tim 2:12. I am working on a lengthy discussion of The Role of Women in Ministry. While authentew is a key word in the passage, I do not believe it to be pivotal in the interpretation or application. I would suggest that this is one area where context (immediate, near, and distant) are more of a determining factor. That being said, our interpretation within the overall context of Scripture must ALSO be in harmony with recognized usage of that term as well (grammatical). Any interpretation which fails to take into account all four areas, IMHO, is out of balance. More on this later under a new thread.

 

Matt,

I do need to clarify one point. I am not suggesting that the opinions of the ECFs or the reformers, or current theologians should be either ignored or lightly discarded. I read as many commentaries as is reasonably possible in sermon preparation to insure that I do not go off on some radical tangent. But, on some occasions, as you may note in some other of my posts, I do chose the road less traveled as far as “pop theology” is concerned. I do not deviate from either the ECFs, reformers, or modern theologians without a good reason AND without finding some other more learned men who have likewise rejected a popular traditional understanding. It is popular in many circles to understand the church as having replaced Israel (though many do not seem to like the word “replace”) as the beneficiaries of the OT covenant promises. I rejected this, not because I read a few passages that seemed to teach otherwise and then I made a rash break with the historic reformed position, but after many hundreds of hours or research into the writing of those who argue for and defend this historic position. I did not go “solo” in my rejection of church tradition, but after much study I did chose a road less traveled. While I am certainly aware that this brands me as a radical in some circles, it is not their approval that I am seeking.

 

Matt,

I do agree, to some degree, that "sola scriptura" can produce problems if one's methodology is weak. If a person believes to have found "the truth" in total ignorance of what others have understood a passage to teach, he is surely out on a limb alone (solo). In this respect, Mathison is correct in his assessment of radical autonomous theology. I agree that one’s theology must be tested in light of church history. I do not agree that it must be determined in light of church history. Neither of the extremes are acceptable – theology must not be DETERMINED by the Bible PLUS church tradition, nor can it be determined to the exclusion of church tradition. Scripture is still the final authority, but one must be careful not to come up with novel interpretations that have neither the support of the text (CLGH) or the weight of tradition. Tradition does have value; I would not suggest otherwise. BUT, it does not have determining value!

Tradition is like a barometer. It is an indicator. Yet, a barometer is not as accurate as a “weather rock”. A “weather rock” you ask? Put the rock in your front yard. If you can see it very clearly and it is hot to the touch, the weather is clear and sunny. If you see it dimly and the rock is wet, it is overcast and raining. If the rock is gone, there has been a tornado! Scripture is the rock, tradition is a barometer.

 

When we determine the meaning of a passage we should consider as many "others" as is reasonably possible! We should consider the ECFs, reformers, current theologians, etc (I do not normally read apostates and heretics, but have on occasion). I make it a special point to read those who argue against the position I am leaning toward as well as those who argue for it. If my position cannot withstand the arguments of the detractors, I need to change my position! If all I read are those who agree with me, why even read them at all? This is one point of Mathison's with which I agree, many IFBs have set their own interpretation (limited by the breadth of their own training and experience) as THE AUTHORITY, over a CLGH method of understanding the passage. Though a CLGH hermeneutic does not specifically include the consultation of “others” anyone who reinvents the wheel every time he gets into a car, is an idiot. To refuse to benefit from others who have spent a lifetime of study is foolish. No one man can be proficient in every area of theology! To believe such is to think that we are the people and when we are gone wisdom will have died with us! (Job 12:2).

"Theo-cultural inbreeding" is the result of only reading those who agree with you and those in your camp. No historical slur is intended, but when first cousins and brothers and sisters get married for generations you wind up with people on the throne who are barely capable of being servants, let alone rulers! When theologians practice this form of intellectual inbreeding we are left with the current state of affairs.

I would not suggest that CLGH and study of others will bring us to a resolution of all the differences. I would suggest that a commitment to continual dialogue and determination to pursue ethical debate will certainly bring us closer to agreement on some of these issues.

NOTE: By “ethical debate” I mean that we do our best to represent divergent positions accurately and fairly in terms with which their adherents would agree. AND, that we adjust both our statement and understanding of their positions as continuing dialogue demonstrates to be necessary.

Do I expect that this will bring full resolution of all differences? By no means are my glasses that rosie!!! Yet I would hope that we could have cordial discussions of our differences (isn’t that why we are here) without slandering those who hold a divergent view as ignorant idiots! Well trained idiots? Ok. Ignorant? Most likely not, at least not all of us!