Inspiration of Religious scripture (NOB) Flashcards
Two views of Revelation and their view of the Bible or scripture
Propositional revelation- idea that God speaks directly to individuals. Bible makes true statements and facts that can be taken literally and is beyond doubt or debate. Is the ‘traditional’ view that God directly reveals information in factual human terms and God spoke to prophets directly through Jesus and revealed himself directly to writers.
Non-propositional revelation- idea that God is not heard or experienced directly but is interpreted by individuals. Bible indirectly makes true statements as its words are human and limited to human experience. Doesn’t reveal fact but contains indirect experience of God and metaphors and allegories that contain some divine truth. Bible is inspired by God rather than ‘the word’ and God is impersonal. Writers attempt to put their experience of God into words.
Pros and cons of two views of Revelation
Propositional revelation:
Pros:
Says that this is a thing in the Bible
Abraham hearing from God to kill his son
People have experiences for which direct divine intervention is the most likely cause
Healing in Lourdes (St Bernadette)
Imago Dei
In hearing the word of God from other humans, we are hearing from God as humans are made in His image.
Cons:
Very rare
Relies on the existence of an interventionist God
There are inconsistencies here
What’s the difference between divine intervention and coincidence
Entirely subjective, there is no way of proving it
Non-Propositional revelation:
Pros:
More consistent with the existence of God
He is separated from us so we shouldn’t be able to come into direct contact with him.
This can open up a deeper understanding of Him than direct speech
The Bible is interpreted by humans
The Bible is not propositional even if it seems that way. It is made by humans and we are therefore interpreting God through a medium that is not God. This is non propositional revelation
Cons:
Undermines the sovereignty of the Bible
Fine line between religious enlightenment and craziness. Non-propositional revelation is far less trustworthy than propositional revelation.
Evidence for Inspiration of Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 -
“All scripture is god breathed” (Theo pneustos) written by Paul in letter to Timothy. Paul states the Hebrew Canon is God breathed therefore contains something of God in it.
2 Peter 3:16 -
“As they do the other scriptures”
Casually implying that Paul himself is/is considered to be holy scripture. In doing this, he is saying that everything that he says, including 2 Timothy 3:16 is true and therefore all scripture is breathed by God
-Convincing for some as according to Luke’s account in Acts 9 ‘conversion of Saul to Paul’ Paul had direct religious experience and Luke based on eye witness accounts. Also, both Luke and Paul have lines of authority traced back to Jesus (God).
-Paul’s statement ‘all scripture is God breathed’ is itself God breathed if it is scripture which is self verifying could be seen as positive or can be seen as an issue as leads to circular reasoning.
Argument for propositional revelation
Francis Schaeffer in his book ‘He is there and he is not silent’ - 1980
Defends propositional revelation and believes that an ‘unlimited, non-created personal being’ (God) who created us as ‘limited created personal beings’ would logically be able to communicate with those beings. Sees evidence for this in the fact that God created us as ‘language-communicating beings’ so if we are able to communicate it with each other then God must be able to as we are created ‘in the image of God’ and anything we can do God can do better as he is unlimited and we aren’t.
Apparent instances of propositional revelation in Bible used as evidence for scripture being inspired by God
Exodus 20.1-17 ‘The Ten Commandments’
Acts 9.1-22 ‘The Conversion of St. Paul’
Argument for Non-propositional view of revelation
William Temple in his book ‘Nature, Man and God’ 1934
suggested that “There are truths of revelation (…), but they are not themselves directly revealed.” So not to be taken literally.
Roman Catholic Church and Protestant view of inspiration of the Bible
Roman Catholic Church: Bible inspired by God but he is not direct author of the Bible, in sense that he doesn’t provide us with a “ready-made” book in the mind of an inspired person (author). Karl Keating summarises defence for inspired scripture where Catholic church first considers Bible as historical document and then offer evidence that Jesus is in fact God. Argue that Jesus established Church that will never perish, implying infallible teaching authority vested in Church and this teaching authority is able to establish the ‘canon’ of scriptures which is accepted as inspired. Final authority is Church teaching.
Protestant: Martin Luther (seminal figure in reformation) The Holy Spirit revealed knowledge of salvation to the authors. Did not believe in verbal dictation theory which is that God dictated bible word for word to writers, but in the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’- central teaching during reformation that the Bible is final/ultimate form of authority for moral and spiritual matters (not church teaching).
Evangelical view of inspiration of the Bible and various approaches of interpretation
Verbal Plenary Inspiration:
view Bible as genuinely human product but superintended by Holy Spirit meaning Spirit preserved works from human error but didn’t eliminate the specific concerns, style or situation of the author. This Divine involvement allowed biblical writers to communicate to the recipients of their time and later move to produce the words God wanted as to not corrupt God’s message. See inspiration as the cause for biblical infallibility.
Verbal dictation theory:
Nicene Creed-Holy Spirit “spoke through the prophets”
Intuition theory:
bible written by wise men so inspired by advanced human insight
Partial inspiration:
bible infallible in matters of faith and practice/morals but could have errors in history and science
Dynamic inspiration:
words left up to individual/author and only the thoughts contained in the Bible are inspired
Modernist Christianity and Neo-orthodox view of inspiration of the Bible
Modernist: Liberal and progressive so rejects idea that Bible is divinely inspired. Form critics such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) still regards bible as sacred text but doesn’t see it as containing unaltered word of God and attempts to use exegetical methods to separate inspired truth from inconsistent foreign elements that contain it.
Neo-orthodox: view Bible as ‘the words of God’ not ‘The word of God’ so reject idea of textual inerrancy and only when one reads text does it become ‘The word’ to the reader. Reaction to Modernist doctrines which they feel erode the value and significance of Christian faith.
Name for the art of interpretation
Hermeneutics -interpretation is carried out by rational being, not random or entirely subjective and is done when meaning of text is ambiguous and requires deeper understanding first before explaining and unpacking ideas.
The science of interpretation is based on reasoning, so some interpretations can be better than others.
If reason is God-inspired, then so is interpretation
Ways of interpreting the Bible:
- Apophatic way
- Cataphatic way
Apophatic way - theological thinking that attempts to approach the Divine by negation so speaks about God using negative claims such as ‘God is not evil’
adv: clarifies meaning but deeper mysteries about God remain so acknowledges God’s greatness as nothing can be said about him in human terms and from human perspective or language
disadv: just a long way to describe God and don’t really get anywhere as too vague.
Cataphatic way -uses language confidently and positively to describe God ‘via positiva’ such as ‘God is love’
adv: presents God’s attributes as knowable and God should be understandable as Bible shows God revealing himself to us in a human way
Ways of interpreting the Bible:
- Exegesis
- Eisegesis
-exact knowledge and meaning from text
-reader effects meaning of text
To completely understand the text, we muse place ourselves in it. In doing so, we are putting our own meaning into the text (eisegesis). We cannot tell whether we are doing exegesis or eisegesis (being detached from the text and reading it accurately)
Strength of eisegesis: closes gap between bible as an ancient text and our experience today so Bible can’t be considered ‘out of date’
Weakness: eisegesis by itself when applied to text can be too subjective and allows almost any interpretation so requires some exegesis.
Literalist/Fundamentalist view of the Bible
Propositional view:
-Believe that the Bible is direct word of God and is inerrant as there can be no theological historical or cultural error.
-They stay clear of any form of biblical criticism, as believe Bible contains univocal language.
Bible is dictated as each word was deliberately inspired by God through the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the writers.
-Most literalist groups will accept that the bible does not simply contain history and also contains poetry and allegory. But where a text can be interpreted as recording history a literalist will always view it as such.
Strengths
-People never have to rely on their own interpretation as truth is revealed by God so infallible in nature. Arguably less potential for ‘human error’ as less focus on individual or person in question
- Clear guidelines to follow so moral decisions present fewer problems
-It takes seriously the integrity of the bible as historical record
Criticisms
-Inflexibility means it is very weak as just one demonstrable inconsistency or error in either the Old or New Testament is enough to shake this position.
-Encourages sloppy interpretation.
-Can lead to anthropomorphism (the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to God)
-Problems with verification and falsification
-If received passively and without applying human reason, doesn’t account for difference in timeframe and circumstance and so not practical and can’t be applied to reader’s contemporary society
-Lead to Blind obedience
Conservative view of the Bible
Propositional view: The Traditionalist Approach
-Argue that the Holy Spirit, God’s gift to the Church, inspired the people who wrote the canonical books and those who discerned which books were intended by God to be canonical and hold most authority.
-Scripture is inspired by God but written by humans. Its words are not always self-evident in their meaning and the Church has the authority to define and interpret its words.
-See some language as symbolic and analogical, so accepts some rationalisation and interpretation but limited as must be in accordance with the tradition handed down by the Apostles.
Strengths:
-Accept that the Bible may require deeper understanding and interpretation
-Allows room for discussion about the meaning of certain passages, their context and application
-Inspiration of the Bible does not depend on its word for word historical accuracy, but the assent of the Church so compatible with scientific theory and social change
Criticisms:
-Dispute sometimes arises between different Christian groups when one has chosen to add or disregard instructions or laws in the Bible
-Can lead to a pick and choose attitude to some less easy Biblical principles
-Can lead to radical differences in belief and inconsistency within religions
-May question authority of the Church to be able to take it upon itself to interpret the Scriptures for themselves and others and could potentially ignore obvious meaning and impose more spiritual ones
-This approach does not define which texts are central truths and which are less significant and so this difficulty of knowing whether certain passages are absolute or less important causes divisions amongst Christians
Liberalist view of the Bible
strengths and weaknesses
Non-Propositional view:
-The Bible records the experiences of people seriously seeking after God in their own lives, situations and cultures.
-Words are not Divinely inspired, inerrant and authoritative in themselves.
-Liberal theologian would believe that the bible must be interpreted and that it cannot contain facts and feel free to make judgements on the practice and attitudes found in the Bible.
-However, do believe that it is meaningful and corresponds to an objective reality.
-It is the duty of individuals to evaluate the contents of the Bible and apply it, if appropriate, to their own lives in order to form a path to God.
-Difference between this view and the last two is that there is no perceived need for a total community response or consensus (eg. the church) to all parts of the Bible and the assumption is that the individual response is what counts.
Strengths:
-No obligation to refer to any ‘given’ method of interpreting Scripture, so enables individual believer to personalize their response, making the words more meaningful to them.
-Errors or inconsistencies in Bible history, values and beliefs don’t present a major problem for believer, as they recognise that the words may reflect human error
-Liberal views allow people to maintain their religious faith without having to believe stories which, intellectually, they find impossible or inconceivable.
-Liberal views are more accommodating to advancements in modern scientific understanding of the world
-Sees revelation as universal which can be found in other cultures
Criticisms:
-Could cause the Bible to become ineffective tool for teaching and discipline, as it is the believer that decides the value of individual passages. Threatens loss of authority
-People may simply discard parts of the Bible they don’t like, without valid or right reasoning
-Liberal interpretation has destroyed the whole point of the bible and its authority. If concepts such as a virgin birth, miracles and even the resurrection are taken to be other than historically accurate, the whole essence of Christianity is removed.
-Problem of antinomianism and eisegesis (read from my own bias)
-Very subjective
