Sunday, October 15, 2006
Divinely inspired
Jarod,
I have a confession to make. I have a difficult time believing the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have made many remarks during Bible studies, thought many things that would go against traditional views of Biblical authority, and disregarded several keys aspects of Pauline theology (as it is interpreted by Evangelicals).
Where do I start? Taken as a whole, Paul's works make up the majority of the basis for Christian theology. Most sermons that I've heard have been preached out of Paul because the way of salvation is clearly established by him.
There have been several troubling observations that have wandered into my mind while comparing Paul's writing with the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus' teachings were centered around the Kingdom of Heaven/God. Using symbolic language (mustard seed, field of wheat, etc.), Jesus' listeners learned about how the Kingdom of Heaven/God is at hand/among them. He talked about fulfilling the Law, and called his followers to a higher standard of living. His disciples recorded these teachings with a sort of ambiguity that, without Paul's and the other epistles, our systematic theology would have some large holes in it. John's Gospel offers some Cosmic level explanations of Jesus possible relationship with God, as well as some teachings on the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have accounts of Jesus teachings, miracles, confrontations, and deeds.
Enter Paul.
Paul makes hardly a mention of the Kingdom of God/Heaven in his epistles, the central teaching of Jesus. Instead, he goes on long rants about the Deity of Christ, and the importance of the Gospel (Jesus died on the cross for your sins and if you believe in Jesus you won't die but have everlasting life...)
This is why the writings of NT Wright, James Dunn, and others who hold to what is called The New Perspective on Paul, have aided in reworking/understanding what Paul was trying to say.
Basically, this new way of thinking gained popularity when a guy named E.P. Sanders wrote a book called Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he claimed that our traditional understanding of Judaism as a works-based salvation is a misunderstanding of the Judaism of the time. Sanders argued that the Jews did not believe that their goods works saved them, but instead that these actions were boundary points of what Sanders termed 'Covenantal Nomism'.
"Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression." (E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 75)
How NT Wright has influenced my thinking.
The question of whether or not I should be so influenced by a man with such a strange theology is one that I'll put aside for the moment. Wright's Jesus and theVictory of God (summarized here) introduced to me Jesus' political bent. He makes a compelling case for the Messianic juiciness of Jesus' actions and teachings.
- Jesus chose twelve disciples, an obvious allusion to the original twelve tribes of Israel.
- Jesus' challenging of the major authoritative symbols of Israel (authority of the Temple, the Sabbath, Food laws, Ethnicity, etc)
- Even using the phrase, "Repent and believe in me," which Wright claims is the exact phrase used by other Revolutionary leaders during the same era, and roughly means, "Give up your way of doing revolution and follow mine."
This is just a few examples of the fresh light that Wright shines on the historical Jesus. Hopefully we can talk more about these ideas. But let me go back to Paul...
Below are several troubling observations I've made about Paul...
- The overall tone of expectation of the end of the cosmic world within a his generation (which may have also been shared by Jesus). In thinking about this observation, Wright suggests that Jesus and Paul were not talking about the end of the space-time universe, but rather the end of the current age. With this line of thinking, we are now living in the age of the Spirit, where the Kingdom of God is being established here on Earth. This view has its problems as well. Click here to read an interesting summary of the eschatologies of the major world religions.
- Paul's culturally relevant but Enlightment-uninformed view on women, with his conclusions being backed with a strong theological argument (Adam was formed first, then Eve). His arguments seem ill-thought out, or not expressed properly. He makes sweeping statements that, perhaps are cultural, perhaps are not. If he was inspired, shouldn't it be a little more clear what he meant?
- Paul's (and other writers') small-scale view of the world, as evidenced by their dualistic way of dealing with other religions (Christianity is right, any other claims of supernaturalness have demonic origins). No where in Paul's writing do we get a sense that other religions might be partially correct, which is a common Christian view today. The open-mindedness just isn't there. An answer to that might be, 'well, it was necessary for Paul to be as agressive as he was because they were laying down the foundations for Christianity, and he needed to not be wishy-washy.'
But we're saying that everything Paul said is God-inspired, therefore it is true.
- Paul seems really confused with what to do about the fate of Israel in Romans 9-11. Even if there are other passages where he describes old Israel in Orthodox Christian terms, the existence of these fuzzy passages should be red flags to Paul's authority. He seems to be just spouting off unfinished ideas because he's not sure what God's going to do with the existing Israel and the Promise.
- Paul's explicit teachings on the foolishness of getting married in Corinthians (well, if you have to...). I believe this teaching ties directly to the first observation about the end of the world coming soon, and the importance of spreading the message. This singleness passage was taken quite seriously in the early church, as the first saints in the post-persecution period were strange men and women who took vows of celibacy.
My way of dealing with these troubling observations has been to shift my way of thinking about Biblical authority. The cycle goes this way...
Jesus came and taught, died, rose, and sent out his followers.
Paul becomes an influential Christ-follower, writing many letters that were helpful and edifying to the churches. Several Gospels and other epistles are written, and all of these writings are copied and circulated among the churches. Three or four generations later, Constantine sees that Christian theology is not fully thought-through, and gets all of the leaders together to canonize certain books and letters that belong and are authoritative. At that moment in history, the authority of the church was just as, if not more important than the written Scriptures. The church had 'authority' over the Scriptures. So, the second the books were canonized, the authority switched from the hands of the church into the Scriptures?
How do I say this properly...
I want to believe in both the full authority of the church and the full authority of the Scriptures. But, at the moment, I'm viewing the church and Her decisions through God as more authoritative than the chosen Scriptures. Does that sound slippery? It is. But its my way of dealing with this huge problem I have with the Scriptural texts. I hope these links and thoughts are helpful to you in describing where I've been. I will continue to dutifully pursue these answers as I also make myself practically useful in my work. I've had these issues for some time now, just growing while I put them off to the side for survival purposes.
-Dave
I have a confession to make. I have a difficult time believing the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have made many remarks during Bible studies, thought many things that would go against traditional views of Biblical authority, and disregarded several keys aspects of Pauline theology (as it is interpreted by Evangelicals).
Where do I start? Taken as a whole, Paul's works make up the majority of the basis for Christian theology. Most sermons that I've heard have been preached out of Paul because the way of salvation is clearly established by him.
There have been several troubling observations that have wandered into my mind while comparing Paul's writing with the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus' teachings were centered around the Kingdom of Heaven/God. Using symbolic language (mustard seed, field of wheat, etc.), Jesus' listeners learned about how the Kingdom of Heaven/God is at hand/among them. He talked about fulfilling the Law, and called his followers to a higher standard of living. His disciples recorded these teachings with a sort of ambiguity that, without Paul's and the other epistles, our systematic theology would have some large holes in it. John's Gospel offers some Cosmic level explanations of Jesus possible relationship with God, as well as some teachings on the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have accounts of Jesus teachings, miracles, confrontations, and deeds.
Enter Paul.
Paul makes hardly a mention of the Kingdom of God/Heaven in his epistles, the central teaching of Jesus. Instead, he goes on long rants about the Deity of Christ, and the importance of the Gospel (Jesus died on the cross for your sins and if you believe in Jesus you won't die but have everlasting life...)
This is why the writings of NT Wright, James Dunn, and others who hold to what is called The New Perspective on Paul, have aided in reworking/understanding what Paul was trying to say.
Basically, this new way of thinking gained popularity when a guy named E.P. Sanders wrote a book called Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he claimed that our traditional understanding of Judaism as a works-based salvation is a misunderstanding of the Judaism of the time. Sanders argued that the Jews did not believe that their goods works saved them, but instead that these actions were boundary points of what Sanders termed 'Covenantal Nomism'.
"Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression." (E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 75)
How NT Wright has influenced my thinking.
The question of whether or not I should be so influenced by a man with such a strange theology is one that I'll put aside for the moment. Wright's Jesus and theVictory of God (summarized here) introduced to me Jesus' political bent. He makes a compelling case for the Messianic juiciness of Jesus' actions and teachings.
- Jesus chose twelve disciples, an obvious allusion to the original twelve tribes of Israel.
- Jesus' challenging of the major authoritative symbols of Israel (authority of the Temple, the Sabbath, Food laws, Ethnicity, etc)
- Even using the phrase, "Repent and believe in me," which Wright claims is the exact phrase used by other Revolutionary leaders during the same era, and roughly means, "Give up your way of doing revolution and follow mine."
This is just a few examples of the fresh light that Wright shines on the historical Jesus. Hopefully we can talk more about these ideas. But let me go back to Paul...
Below are several troubling observations I've made about Paul...
- The overall tone of expectation of the end of the cosmic world within a his generation (which may have also been shared by Jesus). In thinking about this observation, Wright suggests that Jesus and Paul were not talking about the end of the space-time universe, but rather the end of the current age. With this line of thinking, we are now living in the age of the Spirit, where the Kingdom of God is being established here on Earth. This view has its problems as well. Click here to read an interesting summary of the eschatologies of the major world religions.
- Paul's culturally relevant but Enlightment-uninformed view on women, with his conclusions being backed with a strong theological argument (Adam was formed first, then Eve). His arguments seem ill-thought out, or not expressed properly. He makes sweeping statements that, perhaps are cultural, perhaps are not. If he was inspired, shouldn't it be a little more clear what he meant?
- Paul's (and other writers') small-scale view of the world, as evidenced by their dualistic way of dealing with other religions (Christianity is right, any other claims of supernaturalness have demonic origins). No where in Paul's writing do we get a sense that other religions might be partially correct, which is a common Christian view today. The open-mindedness just isn't there. An answer to that might be, 'well, it was necessary for Paul to be as agressive as he was because they were laying down the foundations for Christianity, and he needed to not be wishy-washy.'
But we're saying that everything Paul said is God-inspired, therefore it is true.
- Paul seems really confused with what to do about the fate of Israel in Romans 9-11. Even if there are other passages where he describes old Israel in Orthodox Christian terms, the existence of these fuzzy passages should be red flags to Paul's authority. He seems to be just spouting off unfinished ideas because he's not sure what God's going to do with the existing Israel and the Promise.
- Paul's explicit teachings on the foolishness of getting married in Corinthians (well, if you have to...). I believe this teaching ties directly to the first observation about the end of the world coming soon, and the importance of spreading the message. This singleness passage was taken quite seriously in the early church, as the first saints in the post-persecution period were strange men and women who took vows of celibacy.
My way of dealing with these troubling observations has been to shift my way of thinking about Biblical authority. The cycle goes this way...
Jesus came and taught, died, rose, and sent out his followers.
Paul becomes an influential Christ-follower, writing many letters that were helpful and edifying to the churches. Several Gospels and other epistles are written, and all of these writings are copied and circulated among the churches. Three or four generations later, Constantine sees that Christian theology is not fully thought-through, and gets all of the leaders together to canonize certain books and letters that belong and are authoritative. At that moment in history, the authority of the church was just as, if not more important than the written Scriptures. The church had 'authority' over the Scriptures. So, the second the books were canonized, the authority switched from the hands of the church into the Scriptures?
How do I say this properly...
I want to believe in both the full authority of the church and the full authority of the Scriptures. But, at the moment, I'm viewing the church and Her decisions through God as more authoritative than the chosen Scriptures. Does that sound slippery? It is. But its my way of dealing with this huge problem I have with the Scriptural texts. I hope these links and thoughts are helpful to you in describing where I've been. I will continue to dutifully pursue these answers as I also make myself practically useful in my work. I've had these issues for some time now, just growing while I put them off to the side for survival purposes.
-Dave
Comments:
<< Home
Slippery, yes. I guess you'll just slide in Catholicism, which is ok, Dave, ok.
I wonder how CM/YM/Religion majors handle post-college life different than "non-religious" majors? Is there post-grad "meltdown" more violent? Or softened? Are they mroe skeptical or less? More certain or less? Are they more or less "religious" or "spiritual" 10 years down the road? Are they more orthodox?
I feel like I'm in between, b/c one of my majors has a foot in the religion door, and I've been reading / blogging so much within the "religious circle". Have you noticed any trends with your friends?
I wonder how CM/YM/Religion majors handle post-college life different than "non-religious" majors? Is there post-grad "meltdown" more violent? Or softened? Are they mroe skeptical or less? More certain or less? Are they more or less "religious" or "spiritual" 10 years down the road? Are they more orthodox?
I feel like I'm in between, b/c one of my majors has a foot in the religion door, and I've been reading / blogging so much within the "religious circle". Have you noticed any trends with your friends?
Hey Dave, how's it going? Seems like forever ago I sat next to you in critical writing at IWU. Hope all is well.
I read your post (and the one before it -- I'm a big fan of the original 'The Office', too) and had some questions to add.
You seem to find yourself disagreeing with and/or not finding oh-so-clear the writing of Paul. And that, at least as part of a process, is fine. Everything in the Bible is disagreeable to us before we become regenerate. The Bible says we're hostile to God. Then our eyes are opened, we see the Word, we understand, and we respond. Then we go through sanctification and that happens in smaller doses over and over again. New passages of Scripture finally one day make sense. Sin in our lives that we never noticed is revealed. Over and over until we die. We will always find the "old man" in conflict with the Word. Always.
I fear, however, that your answer to this issue is not a slippery slope, but is well beyond that. When finding yourself not understanding or not agreeing, your answer is to presuppose the problem lies elsewhere and not with yourself. When we find ourselves not understanding, we need to read and pray more. In regards to Romans 9-11, have you read commentaries and books by men wiser than yourself to try to gain wisdom and understanding? Have you spent time in prayer over these passages and resolved yourself to be patient?
To dismiss parts of Scripture because we don't find them clear or we think they would be improved by having been written after the Enlightenment is heretical. To suggest that some Scripture is not God-breathed is most definitely in direct conflict with Scripture (and yes, it was Paul that said that). To suggest that Paul's writings were not inspired puts you in an open system of revelation. Relativism now has a foothold as you are now the authority that judges the Scriptures -- whatever doesn't line-up with you gets tossed. That's exactly backwards, my friend.
I hope you take seriously the thoughts you've shared. This topic is no small one and isn't one to be toyed with. When the early church *recognized* (i.e., humbling submitting themselves to what already appeared to be inspired writings that the very earliest church had used) what was Scripture, it submitted itself to it.
I hope that as you continue to dutifully pursue these issues, as you said you would, you ultimately end up humbly recognizing the Word of God and that it is what births faith in every Christian's heart (Rom. 10:17) and it is what built and continues to command and guide the church today.
I read your post (and the one before it -- I'm a big fan of the original 'The Office', too) and had some questions to add.
You seem to find yourself disagreeing with and/or not finding oh-so-clear the writing of Paul. And that, at least as part of a process, is fine. Everything in the Bible is disagreeable to us before we become regenerate. The Bible says we're hostile to God. Then our eyes are opened, we see the Word, we understand, and we respond. Then we go through sanctification and that happens in smaller doses over and over again. New passages of Scripture finally one day make sense. Sin in our lives that we never noticed is revealed. Over and over until we die. We will always find the "old man" in conflict with the Word. Always.
I fear, however, that your answer to this issue is not a slippery slope, but is well beyond that. When finding yourself not understanding or not agreeing, your answer is to presuppose the problem lies elsewhere and not with yourself. When we find ourselves not understanding, we need to read and pray more. In regards to Romans 9-11, have you read commentaries and books by men wiser than yourself to try to gain wisdom and understanding? Have you spent time in prayer over these passages and resolved yourself to be patient?
To dismiss parts of Scripture because we don't find them clear or we think they would be improved by having been written after the Enlightenment is heretical. To suggest that some Scripture is not God-breathed is most definitely in direct conflict with Scripture (and yes, it was Paul that said that). To suggest that Paul's writings were not inspired puts you in an open system of revelation. Relativism now has a foothold as you are now the authority that judges the Scriptures -- whatever doesn't line-up with you gets tossed. That's exactly backwards, my friend.
I hope you take seriously the thoughts you've shared. This topic is no small one and isn't one to be toyed with. When the early church *recognized* (i.e., humbling submitting themselves to what already appeared to be inspired writings that the very earliest church had used) what was Scripture, it submitted itself to it.
I hope that as you continue to dutifully pursue these issues, as you said you would, you ultimately end up humbly recognizing the Word of God and that it is what births faith in every Christian's heart (Rom. 10:17) and it is what built and continues to command and guide the church today.
Adam,
I realize that this whole practice of bringing up 'my current doubts about faith' is a tired practice within the post IWU blog world, but I guess it didn't stop me from doing the same.
Also, I wouldn't classify myself as going through a 'faith-meltdown'. It's more of a continuation of a self-described 'healing process'. Possibly a reaction against the very medicine I need.
I do think most believers experience this if they attend a secular university. The challenges come earlier.
Luke,
What's going on, man? You left and got married and all that good stuff. I hope life is good!
You bring up an interesting idea, one that's been proposed to me before. It's that, I, David, want Paul to be wrong, and so I try to find things in his writings and polarize the strange stuff in an effort to combat him. I suppose that could be true. There are definitely some of Paul's teachings that I know rubbed me the wrong way just because I didn't like them. Who finds it easy to be held accountable? Who wants to be challenged to grow and mature beyond their current point?
Yes, there are definite spiritual challenges that Paul and the rest of the New Testament present to those who wish to follow Christ, but it is not these challenges that I am addressing. So while I want to agree with you, I don't know if I can. Because the admission of a false motive won't necessarily cause what I consider to be troubling observations to just go away. Does that make sense?
Thank you for taking the time to respond and challenge me. I do appreciate it.
I realize that this whole practice of bringing up 'my current doubts about faith' is a tired practice within the post IWU blog world, but I guess it didn't stop me from doing the same.
Also, I wouldn't classify myself as going through a 'faith-meltdown'. It's more of a continuation of a self-described 'healing process'. Possibly a reaction against the very medicine I need.
I do think most believers experience this if they attend a secular university. The challenges come earlier.
Luke,
What's going on, man? You left and got married and all that good stuff. I hope life is good!
You bring up an interesting idea, one that's been proposed to me before. It's that, I, David, want Paul to be wrong, and so I try to find things in his writings and polarize the strange stuff in an effort to combat him. I suppose that could be true. There are definitely some of Paul's teachings that I know rubbed me the wrong way just because I didn't like them. Who finds it easy to be held accountable? Who wants to be challenged to grow and mature beyond their current point?
Yes, there are definite spiritual challenges that Paul and the rest of the New Testament present to those who wish to follow Christ, but it is not these challenges that I am addressing. So while I want to agree with you, I don't know if I can. Because the admission of a false motive won't necessarily cause what I consider to be troubling observations to just go away. Does that make sense?
Thank you for taking the time to respond and challenge me. I do appreciate it.
Dave,
Yup, I left and got married and got a job. Crazy times. Life is good, thanks.
I don't think my point was that you want Paul to be wrong, so you then go looking for ways to combat him. My point was that you already, however you got there, disagree with the Bible and therefore are deciding that the Bible is wrong and you are right. Your presuppositions are in a place where you come to the Word as judge of it -- not submitting to the fact that it will judge you.
You said you want to believe the church is more authoratative than the Word. Isn't it the Word that built the church? Isn't Jesus the Word in the flesh? Isn't the Word what births faith in our hearts? Isn't it the Word that tells the church how to live responsively to the Gospel?
To say that you want the decisions the church makes to be more authoratative than the Scriptures is something of a never-ending cycle. Have you thought through how that will play out? The church, a long time ago, received letters and writings from church leaders and then held these writings as inspired. Years later, you come along and say you want the church to have more authority than the Word. You don't actually want that, otherwise you would've recognized the church's desire to submit itself to the Word and you would've done likewise in submission to the church. What you want is for you yourself to be above Scripture. You want Dave Rowe to judge what is and what is not Scripture and you want to judge it not based on looking at what the church (which you indicate is your focus) did with these writings, rather, you want to judge it based on if you find it agreeable and clear with and to yourself.
I was blown away by this comment you made: "No where in Paul's writing do we get a sense that other religions might be partially correct, which is a common Christian view today. The open-mindedness just isn't there."
While there are "Christians" who believe that other religions are partially correct, and while this has crept into the church, is that in any way, shape, or form a represetnation of truth and of what God says? This is why the church cannot be above Scripture. You are saying, "Christians today like to partially accept other religions, therefore, the parts of the Bible that disagree with that must be wrong." You liked to contrast Jesus and Paul. Please do not forget that Jesus claimed to be THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. There is no "part way" to the Father. No where in the Bible do you find the teaching that we should partially accept other religions. The Bible says that anything not done in faith is sin. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and athiests will get 0 righteousness points when beng judged, no matter how nice they were to anyone.
Being open-minded to other religions, while common in today's American church, is not a truly Christian idea. In fact, it's as far from it as one can be.
Dave, I hope you have men you look up, friends or pastors or professors, who you can converse with about this that will hold you to the Word. I'm surprised by the lack of comments to this post, but maybe those that know you better talk to you in person or privately through email. You're a great guy, Dave, but this is far beyond a slippery slope. This is heretical. This is not good for you or anyone. I hope you continue to hold yourself up to the light of the Word and pray that God leads you and works in you through His Word. I hope you continue to search for answers, and I hope you do so with an accurate view and acknowledgement of your own presuppositions.
Yup, I left and got married and got a job. Crazy times. Life is good, thanks.
I don't think my point was that you want Paul to be wrong, so you then go looking for ways to combat him. My point was that you already, however you got there, disagree with the Bible and therefore are deciding that the Bible is wrong and you are right. Your presuppositions are in a place where you come to the Word as judge of it -- not submitting to the fact that it will judge you.
You said you want to believe the church is more authoratative than the Word. Isn't it the Word that built the church? Isn't Jesus the Word in the flesh? Isn't the Word what births faith in our hearts? Isn't it the Word that tells the church how to live responsively to the Gospel?
To say that you want the decisions the church makes to be more authoratative than the Scriptures is something of a never-ending cycle. Have you thought through how that will play out? The church, a long time ago, received letters and writings from church leaders and then held these writings as inspired. Years later, you come along and say you want the church to have more authority than the Word. You don't actually want that, otherwise you would've recognized the church's desire to submit itself to the Word and you would've done likewise in submission to the church. What you want is for you yourself to be above Scripture. You want Dave Rowe to judge what is and what is not Scripture and you want to judge it not based on looking at what the church (which you indicate is your focus) did with these writings, rather, you want to judge it based on if you find it agreeable and clear with and to yourself.
I was blown away by this comment you made: "No where in Paul's writing do we get a sense that other religions might be partially correct, which is a common Christian view today. The open-mindedness just isn't there."
While there are "Christians" who believe that other religions are partially correct, and while this has crept into the church, is that in any way, shape, or form a represetnation of truth and of what God says? This is why the church cannot be above Scripture. You are saying, "Christians today like to partially accept other religions, therefore, the parts of the Bible that disagree with that must be wrong." You liked to contrast Jesus and Paul. Please do not forget that Jesus claimed to be THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. There is no "part way" to the Father. No where in the Bible do you find the teaching that we should partially accept other religions. The Bible says that anything not done in faith is sin. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and athiests will get 0 righteousness points when beng judged, no matter how nice they were to anyone.
Being open-minded to other religions, while common in today's American church, is not a truly Christian idea. In fact, it's as far from it as one can be.
Dave, I hope you have men you look up, friends or pastors or professors, who you can converse with about this that will hold you to the Word. I'm surprised by the lack of comments to this post, but maybe those that know you better talk to you in person or privately through email. You're a great guy, Dave, but this is far beyond a slippery slope. This is heretical. This is not good for you or anyone. I hope you continue to hold yourself up to the light of the Word and pray that God leads you and works in you through His Word. I hope you continue to search for answers, and I hope you do so with an accurate view and acknowledgement of your own presuppositions.
Ironically, I came across this in some reading this morning:
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." (2 Pet. 3:15-18)
Keep in mind that to dismiss the divine inspiration of Paul would mean to dismiss Peter, as well.
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." (2 Pet. 3:15-18)
Keep in mind that to dismiss the divine inspiration of Paul would mean to dismiss Peter, as well.
Luke,
I appreciate your comments. I'd like to reiterate that I have not dismissed the authority or the inspiration of Paul's writings, just that these troubling observations cause me to question it. I am not throwing away Paul's writings. I am changing the way I view Scripture and the role it plays in the Christian faith.
It might be helpful to point out that, while the church canonized the New Testament around 300AD, most people couldn't read, and shortly after that most weren't allowed to interpret it. It was only read by the church hierarchy. After the invention of the printing press, and widespread educational movements, more people had access to the Scriptures, and more people knew how to read. However, Martin Luther's Sola Scriptura principle is as young as 500 years old, a quarter of the history of the church.
And Luther made some 'heretical' comments in his preface to the book of James
here
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html
You said,
'Isn't it the Word that built the church? Isn't Jesus the Word in the flesh? Isn't the Word what births faith in our hearts? Isn't it the Word that tells the church how to live responsively to the Gospel?'
This is another example of why Biblical authority is quite nebulous. The term, 'The Word' quickly switches between being the written Scriptures and Jesus Himself. I am not trying to be annoying or mean here, I am simply being honest in re-assessing these well-used evangelical sayings.
I believe that Jesus is THE Word, and that He is revealed through the Scriptures. However, I am open to the possibility of there being human elements in the written Scriptures. This doesn't really answer your question of, "How can I keep this ambiguous definition of Biblical authority from sliding into a self-serving selection of material?" That's where church authority and interpretation come into play, ideally.
I appreciate your comments. I'd like to reiterate that I have not dismissed the authority or the inspiration of Paul's writings, just that these troubling observations cause me to question it. I am not throwing away Paul's writings. I am changing the way I view Scripture and the role it plays in the Christian faith.
It might be helpful to point out that, while the church canonized the New Testament around 300AD, most people couldn't read, and shortly after that most weren't allowed to interpret it. It was only read by the church hierarchy. After the invention of the printing press, and widespread educational movements, more people had access to the Scriptures, and more people knew how to read. However, Martin Luther's Sola Scriptura principle is as young as 500 years old, a quarter of the history of the church.
And Luther made some 'heretical' comments in his preface to the book of James
here
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html
You said,
'Isn't it the Word that built the church? Isn't Jesus the Word in the flesh? Isn't the Word what births faith in our hearts? Isn't it the Word that tells the church how to live responsively to the Gospel?'
This is another example of why Biblical authority is quite nebulous. The term, 'The Word' quickly switches between being the written Scriptures and Jesus Himself. I am not trying to be annoying or mean here, I am simply being honest in re-assessing these well-used evangelical sayings.
I believe that Jesus is THE Word, and that He is revealed through the Scriptures. However, I am open to the possibility of there being human elements in the written Scriptures. This doesn't really answer your question of, "How can I keep this ambiguous definition of Biblical authority from sliding into a self-serving selection of material?" That's where church authority and interpretation come into play, ideally.
I just read this helpful dialogue on a blog of an IWU prof
http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2006/10/reformed-and-wesleyan-dialog.html
http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2006/10/reformed-and-wesleyan-dialog.html
Dave,
Quick side note: I'm not really sure what your recount of the history of the physical Scriptures from the early church up through Luther was meant to establish. "Sola Scriptura" may have become a recognized, popular idea 500 years ago, but the reformers weren't out to do anything new, they wanted to return to what was. Sola Scriptura was to go *back* (after straying under the "authority" of the church) to the one thing that was for sure: the Bible. It's a humble recognition of what was already there and what has been there. So, while the reformers wanted us to hold Scripture as the rule, it can hardly be said that this was a new idea. And the issue isn't there idea, the issue is Scripture itself. And it's fairly safe to say that's been around for a while.
But, on to the core issue...
I guess I'm not really sure where exactly you stand in regards to Paul's writings.
"I have no dismissed the authority or the inspiration of Paul's writings."
"Troubling observations cause me to question it."
"I am changing the way I view Scripture."
So, you haven't dismissed the authority or inspiration of Paul's writings. But, you have changed the way you view Scripture. It's hard to see what else you could change your view to.
So, I guess this is the best thing to do...
Yes or no question: do you think Paul's canonized writings are God-breathed inspired writings, containing absolute truth, useful for teaching, training, and rebuking, that you, Dave, must hold as your rule and guide (along with the rest of the Scriptures, of course)?
Quick side note: I'm not really sure what your recount of the history of the physical Scriptures from the early church up through Luther was meant to establish. "Sola Scriptura" may have become a recognized, popular idea 500 years ago, but the reformers weren't out to do anything new, they wanted to return to what was. Sola Scriptura was to go *back* (after straying under the "authority" of the church) to the one thing that was for sure: the Bible. It's a humble recognition of what was already there and what has been there. So, while the reformers wanted us to hold Scripture as the rule, it can hardly be said that this was a new idea. And the issue isn't there idea, the issue is Scripture itself. And it's fairly safe to say that's been around for a while.
But, on to the core issue...
I guess I'm not really sure where exactly you stand in regards to Paul's writings.
"I have no dismissed the authority or the inspiration of Paul's writings."
"Troubling observations cause me to question it."
"I am changing the way I view Scripture."
So, you haven't dismissed the authority or inspiration of Paul's writings. But, you have changed the way you view Scripture. It's hard to see what else you could change your view to.
So, I guess this is the best thing to do...
Yes or no question: do you think Paul's canonized writings are God-breathed inspired writings, containing absolute truth, useful for teaching, training, and rebuking, that you, Dave, must hold as your rule and guide (along with the rest of the Scriptures, of course)?
I can't answer the question because of the way you phrased it. It would be yes to some stuff, possibly to other stuff, and doubtful to still other stuff.
They are God-breathed (whatever that might mean). They are inspired, meaning that Paul did not create the ideas, but they were revealed to him. They contain truths. All of the truths they contain are absolute.
This being said, they couldn't not be useful for what Paul said they were useful for (though a strong critic might say that he was strictly referring to our Old Testament).
Again, I can say all this and still stand by my observations.
They are God-breathed (whatever that might mean). They are inspired, meaning that Paul did not create the ideas, but they were revealed to him. They contain truths. All of the truths they contain are absolute.
This being said, they couldn't not be useful for what Paul said they were useful for (though a strong critic might say that he was strictly referring to our Old Testament).
Again, I can say all this and still stand by my observations.
Dave,
I guess I still don't really get your point and the problem could very well be on my end. You haven't, you said, dismissed the authority or inspiration of Paul's writings (meaning you believe they are inspired and are authoritative). Some observations have caused you to question it (and it is by all means fine to question to gain understanding, it's just that sometimes we Christians today applaud not the search for truth, but rather one's ability to hide behind "uww, good one" questions while never actually coming down anywhere). So you are changing the way you view Scripture.
So I guess I still don't get what you're changing the view to. You view Paul's writings and inspired and authoritative. But you're changing the way you view Scripture. If I'm reading you right, it seems a large part of your answer is to put the church on a level playing field of authority with the Bible. I'd imagine you realize that this opens an entire world of issues you have to deal with. Which church is right? And, in this case, can all churches be right at once because they all carry full authority? What if the church disagrees with the Bible? Etc. Already you can see that both cannot have full authority. One must answer to the other. Even your approach of not agreeing with Paul and therefore questioning his inspiration shows the open door of revelation that would become the church authority. You noted that Biblical authority could be nebulous, but you must realize, I assume, that unless the Bible contradicts itself, you're appealing to the desire for ease. And if nebulous is an issue, it's hard to imagine the church with its hundreds of denominations is any more clear.
I do, really, applaud one asking, "Wait, why do I think this is Scripture?" and really examining it. That is admirable on all levels and in all ways. But your criteria for questioning Paul seems unadvisable: some stuff you personally don't find clear; Paul was able to benefit from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but was regrettably left without the influence of the Enlightenment (is there anything new under the sun?); Paul wasn't open to the idea that other religions might be right (is this an issue because other religions are right?); you don't know what Paul thinks about Israel so you seem to default to the issue probably being with the writer and not the reader.
I can see that my response to your thoughts can be viewed as "overreacting zealous reformed person, stuck in his closed world, always freaking out about this and afraid of that". My concern is not that you are heartily taking in Scripture and really asking hard questions. No, that is commendable. My concern is where you come down after that (mostly due to how you asking your questions). I am wondering what you believe was wrong with your view of Scripture that needs to be changed. It's apparently, according to you, not the ideas of inspiration or authority. So I'm very curious to see what is left to change.
I applaud your last two sentences in your original post. You will dutifully pursue answers and continue in the race. I hope you do find answers. Many today are very satisfied to just ask questions. It seems you are not in that camp and I will be interested to see where you fall in your conclusions.
I am probably way past beating a dead horse and don't want to take up any more space in your comment section. I've appreciated your dialogue and your patience with comments you weren't probably anticipating or wanting to deal with.
I guess I still don't really get your point and the problem could very well be on my end. You haven't, you said, dismissed the authority or inspiration of Paul's writings (meaning you believe they are inspired and are authoritative). Some observations have caused you to question it (and it is by all means fine to question to gain understanding, it's just that sometimes we Christians today applaud not the search for truth, but rather one's ability to hide behind "uww, good one" questions while never actually coming down anywhere). So you are changing the way you view Scripture.
So I guess I still don't get what you're changing the view to. You view Paul's writings and inspired and authoritative. But you're changing the way you view Scripture. If I'm reading you right, it seems a large part of your answer is to put the church on a level playing field of authority with the Bible. I'd imagine you realize that this opens an entire world of issues you have to deal with. Which church is right? And, in this case, can all churches be right at once because they all carry full authority? What if the church disagrees with the Bible? Etc. Already you can see that both cannot have full authority. One must answer to the other. Even your approach of not agreeing with Paul and therefore questioning his inspiration shows the open door of revelation that would become the church authority. You noted that Biblical authority could be nebulous, but you must realize, I assume, that unless the Bible contradicts itself, you're appealing to the desire for ease. And if nebulous is an issue, it's hard to imagine the church with its hundreds of denominations is any more clear.
I do, really, applaud one asking, "Wait, why do I think this is Scripture?" and really examining it. That is admirable on all levels and in all ways. But your criteria for questioning Paul seems unadvisable: some stuff you personally don't find clear; Paul was able to benefit from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but was regrettably left without the influence of the Enlightenment (is there anything new under the sun?); Paul wasn't open to the idea that other religions might be right (is this an issue because other religions are right?); you don't know what Paul thinks about Israel so you seem to default to the issue probably being with the writer and not the reader.
I can see that my response to your thoughts can be viewed as "overreacting zealous reformed person, stuck in his closed world, always freaking out about this and afraid of that". My concern is not that you are heartily taking in Scripture and really asking hard questions. No, that is commendable. My concern is where you come down after that (mostly due to how you asking your questions). I am wondering what you believe was wrong with your view of Scripture that needs to be changed. It's apparently, according to you, not the ideas of inspiration or authority. So I'm very curious to see what is left to change.
I applaud your last two sentences in your original post. You will dutifully pursue answers and continue in the race. I hope you do find answers. Many today are very satisfied to just ask questions. It seems you are not in that camp and I will be interested to see where you fall in your conclusions.
I am probably way past beating a dead horse and don't want to take up any more space in your comment section. I've appreciated your dialogue and your patience with comments you weren't probably anticipating or wanting to deal with.
Luke,
What good is asking questions if they cannot develop, mature, or even change some of your previous ideas?
The dilemma of 'which church should have authority' is a good one. You are right to point out that, within the Sola Scriptura movement, there are thousands of different denominations which claim to have the best interpretation of Scripture. This is a problem for all believers. Even Catholics have priests whose opinions differ in regard to major theological systems.
I know some might look at this problem and say, "That's why we need to get back to the Bible, look at all these divisions." I would disagree. This is the obvious result of thousands of eyes and minds focusing their attention on these difficult to interpret, heavy-laden with context writings. Is this really helpful? Most lay-people will shift their view of a text the minute their pastor presents the 'proper' interpretation.
Paul's voice is one of the earliest Christian fathers, as is Peter's and the other epistle writers. They are the voices of the early church. They were/are the church. But they were writing to people in their time. They were not picturing you and me and TV's and cars and the Industrial Revolution and a man on the moon when they wrote these passages.
But I am humbly, openly choosing to gently disagree or disregard certain comments, keeping myself in check within the Christian community (through attending services, small group studies, and personal studies). I think if others are honest, they will agree. That's what the whole Emerging Church movement is about, changing one's view of Scripture's authority/purpose in the believer's life. In it's place, the authority of the church rises up.
Please continue to dialogue with me
What good is asking questions if they cannot develop, mature, or even change some of your previous ideas?
The dilemma of 'which church should have authority' is a good one. You are right to point out that, within the Sola Scriptura movement, there are thousands of different denominations which claim to have the best interpretation of Scripture. This is a problem for all believers. Even Catholics have priests whose opinions differ in regard to major theological systems.
I know some might look at this problem and say, "That's why we need to get back to the Bible, look at all these divisions." I would disagree. This is the obvious result of thousands of eyes and minds focusing their attention on these difficult to interpret, heavy-laden with context writings. Is this really helpful? Most lay-people will shift their view of a text the minute their pastor presents the 'proper' interpretation.
Paul's voice is one of the earliest Christian fathers, as is Peter's and the other epistle writers. They are the voices of the early church. They were/are the church. But they were writing to people in their time. They were not picturing you and me and TV's and cars and the Industrial Revolution and a man on the moon when they wrote these passages.
But I am humbly, openly choosing to gently disagree or disregard certain comments, keeping myself in check within the Christian community (through attending services, small group studies, and personal studies). I think if others are honest, they will agree. That's what the whole Emerging Church movement is about, changing one's view of Scripture's authority/purpose in the believer's life. In it's place, the authority of the church rises up.
Please continue to dialogue with me
Dave,
For whatever reason, this conversation came back to mind a couple of days ago I and checked to see if anyone had added anything and found you saying "please continue to dialogue with me", so here I am again. I'm glad I checked.
"What good is asking questions if they cannot develop, mature, or even change some of your previous ideas?"
I agree. Asking questions is vital and healthy. However, the answers we arrive at are what we should be most concerned with. As Proverbs encourages us, we are to seek out wisdom. Part of that is most definitely asking questions. But we should remember the people that Paul (sorry) talks about, who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim. 3:7
The dilemma of 'which church should have authority' is a good one. You are right to point out that, within the Sola Scriptura movement, there are thousands of different denominations which claim to have the best interpretation of Scripture. This is a problem for all believers. Even Catholics have priests whose opinions differ in regard to major theological systems.
I know some might look at this problem and say, "That's why we need to get back to the Bible, look at all these divisions." I would disagree. This is the obvious result of thousands of eyes and minds focusing their attention on these difficult to interpret, heavy-laden with context writings. Is this really helpful? Most lay-people will shift their view of a text the minute their pastor presents the 'proper' interpretation.
We agree that hundreds of pastors and teachers and churches and denominations have a bunch of different interpretations of what Scripture says. I say: "the Bible is the standard." You say: "well, that's the problem. The Bible is the problem. It's heavy and burdensome, difficult to interpret, so we can't really go there."
First, what is your standard and guide in your criteria for labeling the Bible the problem? It's you. You are the standard. You are the guide.
You've also removed the Holy Spirit from the reading of the Scriptures. Peter and Paul might have been writing to people then and there (the Corinthians, Timothy, etc.), but the Holy Spirit was writing to all believers. Truth does not change. Why have you not also questioned the books of the Law that were written down for Israel thousands of years ago? Why not Jesus' words in red? We weren't there then. This is faulty logic that robs the Holy Spirit of its place in the writing and revealing of Scripture. You're right, Paul was not picture Dave, Luke, TV, cars (let alone hybrids!), the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, or George Bush and the Iraq war. But if the modern era, the post-modern era, the toaster, the slap braclet, the internet, and you or I assume to have any kind of a presence that would change, altar, effect, impact, or have any contextual disagreement with the fundamental facts that God created this world, man sinned, we face God's judgment and wrath, Jesus came to save and redeem fallen men, and He is the only way, truth, and life. Jesus will return and judge the world and those who are saved will be with Him forever -- then we are our own standard and we are shaping God and Scripture around our own thoughts. This is dangerous.
Your dislike of Paul's treatment of women is indicative of this. You're basically saying, "Wait, this doesn't line up with what my culture thinks. That must be because Paul was in a different culture. If he were here today, he would think what I do about women. So obviously, my thinking will align first with my culture or my own sensibilities, and whatever Scripture doesn't align with that probably isn't Scripture." Do you not see this in your thoughts?
I still remain unclear about where you stand on Paul's writings. You seem to say he's inspired, then suggest that his writings in the NT are not in fact inspired. Either God Himself wrote those writings for you, me, all believers of all time, or He did not. And if He did not, you should violently come against them in the church because they will be misguiding, provide false doctrine, and hold people to guides and standards God has not ordained.
I've tried asking you in simple terms to see what you believe, but you don't seem able to fully communicate what you believe about Paul's writings. Either this is a communication issue, or you don't have a fully developed position on Paul. That is, you're neither yay nor nay about his NT writings.
Your train of thought has opened the door of Sola Scriptura (a door that, in this metaphor, I would say should be closed) and I believe you have swung wide-open the door of relativism. Do you believe in absolute truth? Do you believe that while we humbly acknowledge we do not know all things exhaustively, we can know concretely what things God reveals?
I appreciate your desire to stay a part of the Christian community, but I would encourage you follow what the Bible says: watch your doctrine. Although, right there lies our presuppositional problem. I can't really approach you based on the weight of Scripture because you have opened the door to disregard what you do not agree with. It is good that you attend church services (are you a member of a local body?), small groups and studies, etc. But Dave, do you really believe that your fellowship is full and your obedience grounded when you don't regard much of the NT as Scripture?
"But I am humbly, openly choosing to gently disagree or disregard certain comments" ... "That's what the whole Emerging Church movement is about, changing one's view of Scripture's authority / purpose in the believer's life."
Dave, I have no idea what you believe about Scripture. I know for sure that you say your view is changing. I assume you would've fallen with most evangelical Christian thoughts about Scripture prior to this change.
Do you know what you believe? What do you believe about Scripture?
Who is your final guide, rule, and standard?
Post a Comment
For whatever reason, this conversation came back to mind a couple of days ago I and checked to see if anyone had added anything and found you saying "please continue to dialogue with me", so here I am again. I'm glad I checked.
"What good is asking questions if they cannot develop, mature, or even change some of your previous ideas?"
I agree. Asking questions is vital and healthy. However, the answers we arrive at are what we should be most concerned with. As Proverbs encourages us, we are to seek out wisdom. Part of that is most definitely asking questions. But we should remember the people that Paul (sorry) talks about, who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim. 3:7
The dilemma of 'which church should have authority' is a good one. You are right to point out that, within the Sola Scriptura movement, there are thousands of different denominations which claim to have the best interpretation of Scripture. This is a problem for all believers. Even Catholics have priests whose opinions differ in regard to major theological systems.
I know some might look at this problem and say, "That's why we need to get back to the Bible, look at all these divisions." I would disagree. This is the obvious result of thousands of eyes and minds focusing their attention on these difficult to interpret, heavy-laden with context writings. Is this really helpful? Most lay-people will shift their view of a text the minute their pastor presents the 'proper' interpretation.
We agree that hundreds of pastors and teachers and churches and denominations have a bunch of different interpretations of what Scripture says. I say: "the Bible is the standard." You say: "well, that's the problem. The Bible is the problem. It's heavy and burdensome, difficult to interpret, so we can't really go there."
First, what is your standard and guide in your criteria for labeling the Bible the problem? It's you. You are the standard. You are the guide.
You've also removed the Holy Spirit from the reading of the Scriptures. Peter and Paul might have been writing to people then and there (the Corinthians, Timothy, etc.), but the Holy Spirit was writing to all believers. Truth does not change. Why have you not also questioned the books of the Law that were written down for Israel thousands of years ago? Why not Jesus' words in red? We weren't there then. This is faulty logic that robs the Holy Spirit of its place in the writing and revealing of Scripture. You're right, Paul was not picture Dave, Luke, TV, cars (let alone hybrids!), the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, or George Bush and the Iraq war. But if the modern era, the post-modern era, the toaster, the slap braclet, the internet, and you or I assume to have any kind of a presence that would change, altar, effect, impact, or have any contextual disagreement with the fundamental facts that God created this world, man sinned, we face God's judgment and wrath, Jesus came to save and redeem fallen men, and He is the only way, truth, and life. Jesus will return and judge the world and those who are saved will be with Him forever -- then we are our own standard and we are shaping God and Scripture around our own thoughts. This is dangerous.
Your dislike of Paul's treatment of women is indicative of this. You're basically saying, "Wait, this doesn't line up with what my culture thinks. That must be because Paul was in a different culture. If he were here today, he would think what I do about women. So obviously, my thinking will align first with my culture or my own sensibilities, and whatever Scripture doesn't align with that probably isn't Scripture." Do you not see this in your thoughts?
I still remain unclear about where you stand on Paul's writings. You seem to say he's inspired, then suggest that his writings in the NT are not in fact inspired. Either God Himself wrote those writings for you, me, all believers of all time, or He did not. And if He did not, you should violently come against them in the church because they will be misguiding, provide false doctrine, and hold people to guides and standards God has not ordained.
I've tried asking you in simple terms to see what you believe, but you don't seem able to fully communicate what you believe about Paul's writings. Either this is a communication issue, or you don't have a fully developed position on Paul. That is, you're neither yay nor nay about his NT writings.
Your train of thought has opened the door of Sola Scriptura (a door that, in this metaphor, I would say should be closed) and I believe you have swung wide-open the door of relativism. Do you believe in absolute truth? Do you believe that while we humbly acknowledge we do not know all things exhaustively, we can know concretely what things God reveals?
I appreciate your desire to stay a part of the Christian community, but I would encourage you follow what the Bible says: watch your doctrine. Although, right there lies our presuppositional problem. I can't really approach you based on the weight of Scripture because you have opened the door to disregard what you do not agree with. It is good that you attend church services (are you a member of a local body?), small groups and studies, etc. But Dave, do you really believe that your fellowship is full and your obedience grounded when you don't regard much of the NT as Scripture?
"But I am humbly, openly choosing to gently disagree or disregard certain comments" ... "That's what the whole Emerging Church movement is about, changing one's view of Scripture's authority / purpose in the believer's life."
Dave, I have no idea what you believe about Scripture. I know for sure that you say your view is changing. I assume you would've fallen with most evangelical Christian thoughts about Scripture prior to this change.
Do you know what you believe? What do you believe about Scripture?
Who is your final guide, rule, and standard?
<< Home
