http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=1248
I’m always surprised at how often I disagree with sites like this. Of course, most of what they say I agree with, but when it comes to critiquing various views deemed “liberal” or “heretical” contributing authors often fall short in many of their criticisms. That being said I could be misunderstanding them, so keep in mind that I am trying to be as charitable as possible in this rebuttle… of their rebuttle.
Here is blueletter’s definition of the dynamic view of inspiration;
“God initially divinely inspired the writers of Scripture but left them to use their own words and expressions in describing the truth that He revealed to them. Divine inspiration only occurred at that initial moment when God communicated to the authors of Scripture.”
On a dynamic view how do we know which part to believe?
"If divine inspiration only occurred at the moment of initial contact between God and the writer, and dealt with their thoughts and not their words, then how can we be certain they chose the right words? How are we able to discern between the writer's own fallible opinions and God's thoughts? Why should we have confidence in the Bible if the forty plus authors were left to their own particular way of stating God's truth as it had initially been revealed to them? Why should we assume their final product was always correct on every matter? Ultimately we cannot if we hold this viewpoint.”
The argument;
It seems that the author is pointing to a number of difficulties here. 1) if God only gave the authors of the Bible ideas to put in their own words and did not facilitate their expression of such ideas then there is no guarantee that the authors accurately expressed them the way God intended. 2) If the Bible only contains divine ideas how do we determine which ideas are human and which are divine? Furthermore it also seems possible that there are human ideas that are used to support divine ideas in which case it would also be impossible to determine which ideas are human and which are divine.
Critique;
I want to make it known from the outset that I am not necessarily defending a strictly dynamic view of Inspiration. My aim is to show that the dichotomy between verbal plenary and dynamic views of inspiration is invalid. That being said I believe the view I present is most consistent with a dynamic view of inspiration.
Perhaps the central problem with these claims is that they ignore the meticulous and reliable analysis involved in translation along with linguistic and contextual studies of the Biblical text. While there is much debate about what the Bible teaches one can fairly say that the core themes have been nailed out of the Biblical text along with mountains of details in the claims and teachings of the Bible. This is my central claim; The Bible should not be viewed as a set of ideas about God and man, but a set of claims. Given this any debate about which claims are of human or divine origin become mute. One can avoid the problem altogether by simply pointing out that we should affirm everything the Bible affirms to be true. But here’s the interesting part, when viewed as a set of claims the crucial question involved in Biblical analysis is what the text is claiming in a certain passage or verse? This preserves a central tenant in interpretation, to keep original intent in view. When asking what claims a text is making it is necessary to see what claims the author is making. How is their culture influencing them? What genre of literature is this text? What is the setting of the text?
Some clarifications;
Some might say that my view isn’t like the dynamic view at all in that it doesn’t allow one to believe the Bible err’s in its historical claims. Actually I think it does. This is because in our culture we view texts as a set of propositions, where each sentence that is not a question expresses a simple direct claim about its subject. This is not necessarily the case in other cultures however, particularly those that can be called a “high context” culture where the central claims are often more implicit than they are explicit. This means that informal literary structures such as figures of speech or hyperbole play a larger role in the Bible than they do in modern english texts. Whats more there are quite a few other cultural assumptions that we take for granted in interpreting the Bible. For example; we like to view time as a measurable chronological abstract resource, we expect all stories to follow a strict timeline of events. In the Biblical world this isn’t the case, before the advent of watches and clocks, time was viewed as a fluid constant of reality. Chronology was not stressed as much as it is in Western culture today. Often ancient authors used the order of events to express deeper morals and teachings of the story. So this fact alone allows for the interpretation that the 4 gospels do technically err in their chronology of various events if we view the text from a 21st century perspective, but from the authors perspective, their emphasis is on what Jesus was like, what He was trying to accomplish and how He saw the world. Thus they did not care about the exact order of events in at least some cases, given this can we really say they claimed a chronological order of events if that was not their intention?
The Entire Process is Divinely Inspired.
"The process of divine inspiration did not end with the initial contact between God and the authors of Scripture. It continued throughout their composition of the work until the biblical book was finished.”
Eh I have to call foul on this one, I can’t think of a version of this argument that isn’t circular in its reasoning. This is especially true since the author gives no biblical or non-biblical arguments to support this assertion. In addition I see no inconsistency between my view and the assertion that inspiration was a process. It seems perfectly consistent to propose that the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit what claims to make in the text while they were writing it. One does not have to view inspiration as strictly involving the wording of the text in order to view it as a process.
The View Confuses Inspiration with Illumination
"This view also confuses inspiration and illumination. The emphasis on Scripture is on divinely inspired words, not divinely inspired writers. It is not the process, but rather the end product that is stressed. It is all Scripture that is God-breathed, not all writers.”
Critique;
Simple enough the writers are not inspired the words are. There is no indication from scripture that the apostles or prophets of old were “upgraded” so to speak in order to adequately express divine ideas. That being said, it would seem that if inspiration did reside in the author initially then that would solve the problem of guaranteeing accurate transmission of divine ideas to the text as God would obviously be capable of enlightening men in a way sufficient to record His revelation in the way He intended.
In addition, on my view this critique doesn’t even apply as its the claims of scripture that are inspired and not the people nor the words specifically.
Does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teach a strictly Plenary Verbal view of inspiration?
I don’t think so. I can’t think of any reason why the concept of all scripture being theopneustos (God Breathed) requires one to believe that every single word is divinely inspired or literally breathed out by God. Such a view seems to border a mechanical dictation view. It seems a better view of “God breathed” is simply to say that all of scripture came from God, or God is the ultimate source of all scripture.
Questions about Plenary Verbal Inspiration;
If as blueletterbible claims here is true, that its the wording that is inspired and not simply the words, then how is it possible that two entirely different translation such as the NLV and the NASB both be inspired if they both contain different wordings of the text? Is one more inspired than the other? I understand that those of a verbal plenary view of inspiration believe that only the original text is truly word for word from God but even so its still the case that translations such as NASB are more true to the original text (being more of a word for word translation) than those like the Message or the NLT.
One article writes; "So if you REALLY want to know God's Word, you have to learn and study it in the original languages. Only a few pastors in the world teach Bible in the original languages to their congregations, but such pastors DO exist. So you can use 1Jn1:9, ask Father in Son's name to direct you to the pastor He wants for you. Never Never Never underestimate God's Power. Your IQ is of no importance, high or low. JUST BE WILLING TO LEARN.” This seems highly problematic to me. What is the point of affirming that the Bible is God’s word if the translations we have can never be truly and completely the word of God? If this is truly the view of those who defend V.P.T. then why do we hear from them at the same time that views like that of Karl Barth are heretical or at the very least false teaching?
If it really doesn’t matter what the exact wording is when it comes to different versions of the Bible then what is the point of emphasizing to the nth degree that God desired every word to be the way it was in the original text? Furthermore at that point what is the difference between saying so long as the various wordings maintain the correct ideas various translations are equally inspired and saying that only the concepts of the Bible are inspired and not the exact words?
Ultimately I just see no reason to suppose the every single word of the Bible is exactly the way God wanted it. Taken to its logical conclusion such a view just makes no sense, it can’t be every exact word otherwise we should only be using a single authoritative version of the Bible as Mormons and KJV only advocates do. It makes much more sense simply to affirm that inspiration and inerrancy only require that we believe that what the Bible claims is true.
Interesting articles;
http://www.satsonline.org/userfiles/Smith_GrammaticalExpositionOf2Tim3.16-17.pdf
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatinspire.html
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2006/Decker.pdf
Friday, June 21, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Dear Lord please don’t let pastors preach on evolution… ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0
Sproul;
1) What are the main arguments for evolution? Evolution from a common ancestor best explains the fossil record. It explains why we don’t see humans buried in the same rock layers as a T-Rex, it explains why we see no vertebrate creatures before the Cambrian period and we do have vertebrate creatures afterwards. Evolution from a common ancestor best explains genetic similarities between species. It explains how two chromosomes from an ape are present as a fused pair in the human genome. Those just give two examples.
2) No Sproul, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. However life originated it is does not affect the truth or falsity of evolution, or descent with modification. Neither does evolution have anything to do with the Big Bang, with the exception that the Earth and the universe is old.
3) Micro and Macro-evolution is not a useful distinction in evolutionary theory. Often times there is more genetic variation within species than there is between species. This is because species are defined as any distinct group of creatures that can reproduce within itself. A different species develops then, when a group of creatures can no longer reproduce with another group.
4) No the question of life’s origins is not merely a question of history. If you are going to go that route you have to throw out the teleological argument, because it is based on theoretical physics which theorizes about how the universe began and developed over time and not just how it behaves today. Obviously history involves a variety of disciplines, as historians rely on scientific dating methods to figure out when an artifact is from. They use scholarly works from sociology and forensic methods from biology to analyze remains and ancient cultures.
Seriously Sproul don’t dip your fingers in so many pies. You haven’t done your homework here.
Hodges;
1) you need to read more works in the philosophy of science. Although many scientists believe that the universe is a closed system, theories such as evolution do not require such an assumption. Evolution does not imply naturalism any more than the theory of gravity or electricity does. To say that Evolution implies naturalism is like saying the Big Bang implies theism. Neither claim is true even though many people make them.
2) You raise an interesting point, how does God interact with a world dominated by natural processes? If weather patterns are responsible for tornadoes and various forces like gravity are responsible for the formation of galaxies then what is there left for God to do? The answer; everything. How? Because for one thing it is possible for something to have multiple explanations. For instance, take baking a cake. You can explain a baked cake by its dimensions, how it was cooked and prepared, the physics of how heat affects yeast etc. but you can also explain it through efficient causes such as someone wanted to bake a cake for their son’s birthday. In the same way we can ask for what reasons do galaxies form? Why do we feel pain? Or what causes the laws of physics to be the way they are? What prevents the universe from ceasing to exist? I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. God does not have to be directly involved in natural processes to be in control of all of nature in an intimate way, much like a mechanic does not have to manually run every part of a car to be considered in love with his car.
Ravi;
1) I agree with you on the bias of liberalism, but scientists reject ID for very good reasons. Take irreducible complexity for instance, as I’ve mentioned before it argues that for a system like the Bacterial Flagellum to function at all, all of its parts must be present. But this simply isn’t true, by taking a series of parts away it becomes a syringe to sting and poison enemies. Similarly contrary to Behe’s claims you do not need to have all the parts of a mouse trap for it to function as a mouse trap, you can have a 4 part, 3 part even 2 part mouse trap and it will still function. The claims of ID as well as the more extreme 6 day creationism are vacuous, the science simply isn’t there to back it up.
Sproul;
1) What are the main arguments for evolution? Evolution from a common ancestor best explains the fossil record. It explains why we don’t see humans buried in the same rock layers as a T-Rex, it explains why we see no vertebrate creatures before the Cambrian period and we do have vertebrate creatures afterwards. Evolution from a common ancestor best explains genetic similarities between species. It explains how two chromosomes from an ape are present as a fused pair in the human genome. Those just give two examples.
2) No Sproul, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. However life originated it is does not affect the truth or falsity of evolution, or descent with modification. Neither does evolution have anything to do with the Big Bang, with the exception that the Earth and the universe is old.
3) Micro and Macro-evolution is not a useful distinction in evolutionary theory. Often times there is more genetic variation within species than there is between species. This is because species are defined as any distinct group of creatures that can reproduce within itself. A different species develops then, when a group of creatures can no longer reproduce with another group.
4) No the question of life’s origins is not merely a question of history. If you are going to go that route you have to throw out the teleological argument, because it is based on theoretical physics which theorizes about how the universe began and developed over time and not just how it behaves today. Obviously history involves a variety of disciplines, as historians rely on scientific dating methods to figure out when an artifact is from. They use scholarly works from sociology and forensic methods from biology to analyze remains and ancient cultures.
Seriously Sproul don’t dip your fingers in so many pies. You haven’t done your homework here.
Hodges;
1) you need to read more works in the philosophy of science. Although many scientists believe that the universe is a closed system, theories such as evolution do not require such an assumption. Evolution does not imply naturalism any more than the theory of gravity or electricity does. To say that Evolution implies naturalism is like saying the Big Bang implies theism. Neither claim is true even though many people make them.
2) You raise an interesting point, how does God interact with a world dominated by natural processes? If weather patterns are responsible for tornadoes and various forces like gravity are responsible for the formation of galaxies then what is there left for God to do? The answer; everything. How? Because for one thing it is possible for something to have multiple explanations. For instance, take baking a cake. You can explain a baked cake by its dimensions, how it was cooked and prepared, the physics of how heat affects yeast etc. but you can also explain it through efficient causes such as someone wanted to bake a cake for their son’s birthday. In the same way we can ask for what reasons do galaxies form? Why do we feel pain? Or what causes the laws of physics to be the way they are? What prevents the universe from ceasing to exist? I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. God does not have to be directly involved in natural processes to be in control of all of nature in an intimate way, much like a mechanic does not have to manually run every part of a car to be considered in love with his car.
Ravi;
1) I agree with you on the bias of liberalism, but scientists reject ID for very good reasons. Take irreducible complexity for instance, as I’ve mentioned before it argues that for a system like the Bacterial Flagellum to function at all, all of its parts must be present. But this simply isn’t true, by taking a series of parts away it becomes a syringe to sting and poison enemies. Similarly contrary to Behe’s claims you do not need to have all the parts of a mouse trap for it to function as a mouse trap, you can have a 4 part, 3 part even 2 part mouse trap and it will still function. The claims of ID as well as the more extreme 6 day creationism are vacuous, the science simply isn’t there to back it up.
What is an argument from ignorance?
Traditionally arguments from ignorance go something like this; there is no reason to suppose that P is false, therefore P must be true, or vice versa; whatever has not been proven true must be false. Arguments from ignorance are alleged to be used in many areas of natural theology. One classic example would be a common argument used by Christian theists that evolution can’t explain how life developed therefore God must have created life.
My problem is this, arguments from ignorance are simply easy to avoid. All the theist has to do to avoid using this argument is to change the nature of the claim and say that God is a better explanation of how life developed than evolution, thus we should believe God is the explanation over evolution. There certainly are other difficulties with this argument, but an argument from ignorance is not one of them.
“But…” the skeptic might retort, “how then do we explain why using aliens to explain U.F.O.’s is irrational?” A fair question to be sure. The answer may sound a bit odd at first, abandon the claim that there is no evidence that aliens exist. The fact is that aliens as an explanation does have explanatory power and as such the claim that aliens exist has evidence for it. However, the problem here is that there are multiple plausible explanations, U.F.O.’s could be explained by astroids, human developed experimental aircraft, or some unidentified natural phenomenon such as ball lightning. Because each of the explanations explain the same range of events and phenomena it is impossible, without further analysis, to argue that one explanation should be preferred over another.
The irony is that if we are to take the traditional view of “arguments from ignorance” which is so often used by skeptics and atheists, then we come to the conclusion that the atheist argument that because there is no evidence for God’s existence it is improbable that God exists commits this fallacy. As Carl Sagan noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, I don’t think the argument commits this fallacy. This is because atheists who use this argument are really arguing that if God existed we would expect to see more evidence of His existence. Thus the argument in its most effective form can be put in a simple syllogism;
1. If God exists there must be powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
2. There is no powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
3. Therefore God does not exist.
My problem is this, arguments from ignorance are simply easy to avoid. All the theist has to do to avoid using this argument is to change the nature of the claim and say that God is a better explanation of how life developed than evolution, thus we should believe God is the explanation over evolution. There certainly are other difficulties with this argument, but an argument from ignorance is not one of them.
“But…” the skeptic might retort, “how then do we explain why using aliens to explain U.F.O.’s is irrational?” A fair question to be sure. The answer may sound a bit odd at first, abandon the claim that there is no evidence that aliens exist. The fact is that aliens as an explanation does have explanatory power and as such the claim that aliens exist has evidence for it. However, the problem here is that there are multiple plausible explanations, U.F.O.’s could be explained by astroids, human developed experimental aircraft, or some unidentified natural phenomenon such as ball lightning. Because each of the explanations explain the same range of events and phenomena it is impossible, without further analysis, to argue that one explanation should be preferred over another.
The irony is that if we are to take the traditional view of “arguments from ignorance” which is so often used by skeptics and atheists, then we come to the conclusion that the atheist argument that because there is no evidence for God’s existence it is improbable that God exists commits this fallacy. As Carl Sagan noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, I don’t think the argument commits this fallacy. This is because atheists who use this argument are really arguing that if God existed we would expect to see more evidence of His existence. Thus the argument in its most effective form can be put in a simple syllogism;
1. If God exists there must be powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
2. There is no powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
3. Therefore God does not exist.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Does the Bible teach anti-intellectualism?
Thesis; The Bible (or at least parts of it) supports anti-intellectualism to some degree or another. Anti-intellectualism can be defined broadly as any hostile attitude towards learning, reason and open-mindedness and/or any attitude that has a tendency to undermine said processes/mental states.
Verses put forward in support of thesis;
1 Corianthians 1:18-20&27; 2:5
John 20:29
Romans 14:23
Hebrews 11:1
Psalms 14:1
Proverbs 3:5-6
This is a semi-comprehensive list that has been used and could be used in support of the claim that to believe the Bible teaches truth, one is committed to “check his brain at the door” or only be permitted to use reason to a limited extent.
Is faith irrational according to the Bible?
Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Before we begin we need to establish a few things about faith and how the authors of the New Testament are defining it. The word used for faith here and everywhere else in the N.T. is “pistis” which means “persuasion, credence, confidence in, trust, loyalty etc… (1)” this is a far cry from the modern definition of believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed the terms grace and faith (pistis) were often used in the ancient world to describe client-patron relationships, where the patron would give underserved favor (grace) to the client and the client would reciprocate by being loyal to and trusting (faith) the patron (2).
Given this background we can analyze Hebrews 11:1 by replacing faith with loyalty; "Now loyalty is the the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So does this verse mean that our loyalty to God is our assurance and proof of God's existence and our hope for eternal life? Obviously not, the rest of the chapter records many prophets and leaders of the Old Testament who saw God and experience His power. So what does this verse mean by assurance and things unseen? Well the word for assurance used here is, "hupostasis" which as a noun refers to the concrete essence or abstract assurance (Strongs Greek/Hebrew Definitions, NT:5287). In addition the word hope, "elpizo" literally mean to expect so the first part of this verse can be understood as; our loyalty and trust in God is the essence of our expectations of God's continuing favor towards us. The second phrase, the evidence of things not seen, also makes sense given a client patron relationship where loyalty is a result or consequence of the grace given by the patron. This means that "things not seen" is better understood as the continual favor of God as our patron.
Having established that faith can be easily and comfortably defined as trust in the context of Hebrews 11:1 the question arises, is this trust rational or irrational?
Proverbs 3:5-6
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
If we are to trust in God and not our understanding does this not mean that we should only believe that which God has told us to be true and ignore our own reasonings?
Well no, first note we are dealing with proverbial literature here. Therefore, this passage should be read in the same way we read, “practice makes perfect”. It obviously isn’t true that mere practice of an activity will make you perfect at it, but it is true that practice is a necessary condition of such a goal. Similarly it isn’t true that we should ignore the fact that 2+2=4 because God hasn’t explicitly revealed it to us but trusting God when it comes to how to live our lives, particularly when it His wisdom comes in conflict with our own is a necessary condition of being a servant of God. Even then, such conflicts in ideas between us and God do not require us to just stop thinking and accept what God says, certainly it is within the realm of trust to seek answers as to where we went wrong and/or if we are misunderstanding God’s command (3).
But what about John 20:29?
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”’
So Jesus is speaking to Thomas here, who asked Jesus to show the holes in his hands and allow Thomas to feel them to know that they were real. Is Jesus, then, saying that those who desire evidence are less blessed than those who don’t? A few considerations have led me to question that interpretation.
For one thing, Thomas clearly had seen, observed and listened to quite a bit of evidence of the truth of Jesus’s claims before this. He had the testimony of 11 men whom he trusted dearly, he had seen Jesus perform many miracles, he even saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. So perhaps Thomas was not being accused here of seeking evidence, but seeking excessive evidence.
In addition, as Jesus points out, converts of the future won’t have as much evidence as Thomas did. However, I would argue that they would have sufficient evidence given that they could confirm with witnesses of Jesus resurrection, what the apostles were claiming and they could even see the miracles of the apostles. Even further down the road philosophical arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity would be developed, including new arguments for the resurrection. Thomas’s attitude, however, seems to be that if he can’t see or touch something, he can’t believe it to be true, leading him to treat Jesus like a puppy, performing tricks on command.
Lastly there is the word blessed. In the greek it is Makarios which has no english equivalent. The most accurate phrase that could be given to it, would perhaps be “a state of honor or contentment.” In this case, it seems Jesus is saying that those who don’t demand more evidence than is sufficient are more honorable than those like Thomas (4, also see Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes, p. 75).
Is all men’s wisdom and knowledge irrational according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
2. http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
3. http://skipmoen.com/tag/proverbs-35-6/
4. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.html
5. http://www.tektonics.org/af/follywise.html
6. http://www.academia.edu/1489237/The_concept_of_Wisdom_in_the_Hebrew_Bible_-_a_philosophical_clarification
Verses put forward in support of thesis;
1 Corianthians 1:18-20&27; 2:5
John 20:29
Romans 14:23
Hebrews 11:1
Psalms 14:1
Proverbs 3:5-6
This is a semi-comprehensive list that has been used and could be used in support of the claim that to believe the Bible teaches truth, one is committed to “check his brain at the door” or only be permitted to use reason to a limited extent.
Is faith irrational according to the Bible?
Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Before we begin we need to establish a few things about faith and how the authors of the New Testament are defining it. The word used for faith here and everywhere else in the N.T. is “pistis” which means “persuasion, credence, confidence in, trust, loyalty etc… (1)” this is a far cry from the modern definition of believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed the terms grace and faith (pistis) were often used in the ancient world to describe client-patron relationships, where the patron would give underserved favor (grace) to the client and the client would reciprocate by being loyal to and trusting (faith) the patron (2).
Given this background we can analyze Hebrews 11:1 by replacing faith with loyalty; "Now loyalty is the the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So does this verse mean that our loyalty to God is our assurance and proof of God's existence and our hope for eternal life? Obviously not, the rest of the chapter records many prophets and leaders of the Old Testament who saw God and experience His power. So what does this verse mean by assurance and things unseen? Well the word for assurance used here is, "hupostasis" which as a noun refers to the concrete essence or abstract assurance (Strongs Greek/Hebrew Definitions, NT:5287). In addition the word hope, "elpizo" literally mean to expect so the first part of this verse can be understood as; our loyalty and trust in God is the essence of our expectations of God's continuing favor towards us. The second phrase, the evidence of things not seen, also makes sense given a client patron relationship where loyalty is a result or consequence of the grace given by the patron. This means that "things not seen" is better understood as the continual favor of God as our patron.
Having established that faith can be easily and comfortably defined as trust in the context of Hebrews 11:1 the question arises, is this trust rational or irrational?
Proverbs 3:5-6
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
If we are to trust in God and not our understanding does this not mean that we should only believe that which God has told us to be true and ignore our own reasonings?
Well no, first note we are dealing with proverbial literature here. Therefore, this passage should be read in the same way we read, “practice makes perfect”. It obviously isn’t true that mere practice of an activity will make you perfect at it, but it is true that practice is a necessary condition of such a goal. Similarly it isn’t true that we should ignore the fact that 2+2=4 because God hasn’t explicitly revealed it to us but trusting God when it comes to how to live our lives, particularly when it His wisdom comes in conflict with our own is a necessary condition of being a servant of God. Even then, such conflicts in ideas between us and God do not require us to just stop thinking and accept what God says, certainly it is within the realm of trust to seek answers as to where we went wrong and/or if we are misunderstanding God’s command (3).
But what about John 20:29?
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”’
So Jesus is speaking to Thomas here, who asked Jesus to show the holes in his hands and allow Thomas to feel them to know that they were real. Is Jesus, then, saying that those who desire evidence are less blessed than those who don’t? A few considerations have led me to question that interpretation.
For one thing, Thomas clearly had seen, observed and listened to quite a bit of evidence of the truth of Jesus’s claims before this. He had the testimony of 11 men whom he trusted dearly, he had seen Jesus perform many miracles, he even saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. So perhaps Thomas was not being accused here of seeking evidence, but seeking excessive evidence.
In addition, as Jesus points out, converts of the future won’t have as much evidence as Thomas did. However, I would argue that they would have sufficient evidence given that they could confirm with witnesses of Jesus resurrection, what the apostles were claiming and they could even see the miracles of the apostles. Even further down the road philosophical arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity would be developed, including new arguments for the resurrection. Thomas’s attitude, however, seems to be that if he can’t see or touch something, he can’t believe it to be true, leading him to treat Jesus like a puppy, performing tricks on command.
Lastly there is the word blessed. In the greek it is Makarios which has no english equivalent. The most accurate phrase that could be given to it, would perhaps be “a state of honor or contentment.” In this case, it seems Jesus is saying that those who don’t demand more evidence than is sufficient are more honorable than those like Thomas (4, also see Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes, p. 75).
Is all men’s wisdom and knowledge irrational according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
At first glance this passage appears to be saying that 1 Christianity is irrational to a secular mind and 2 God is hostile to all the knowledge and wisdom humanity has attained. This interpretation, being heavily influenced by modern sentiments of secular society and human intelligence Is not representative of the topic being discussed in this passage. In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul is addressing a dissention of loyalty among his brothers and sisters in Christ between him and Apollos. This was a tradition of men in Corinth and elsewhere to declare exclusive loyalty to a single leader. Hence Paul paraphrases Isaiah 29:14 which speaks of God destroying such foolish traditions and pseudo-wisdom of men. Again given that it is a paraphrase of poetic/proverbial literature this can't be taken absolutely, God is not intending to destroy all of our scientific knowledge and make us like apes (5).
In regards to 1 additionally the concept of wisdom and foolishness has to do with moral and practical issues more than philosophy and head knowledge. Given this, 1 Corinthians 1:18 seems to be saying to the same people who practice such silly traditions of men as declaring loyalty to a single man the idea that someone died for them on the cross is moronic and stupid. Verse 18 does not then say that according to man-made philosophies and logic the cross is necessarily irrational. Its not even clear the v 18 commits a believer to hold that all non-believers see the cross as stupid and silly as again, proverbial literature is never meant to be taken in absolutes, despite the fact that many Christians desire to do so.
All this being said, a retort might rightly be given that the Hebrew conception of wisdom did relate a great deal to knowledge in a theoretical sense (aka head knowledge) even though such theoretical knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the term. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 is a good example of this sense in that it describes factual knowledge as wisdom, even the knowledge that one cannot know something. But as Jacobus Gericke points out the majority of the themes present in the Hebrew conception of wisdom revolve around practical or moral knowledge (6).
1 Corinthians 1:27
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong"
Much of what has been discussed above applies to this verse as well. What is implicit here is who Paul is speaking about, those who put traditions of men before the commands of God. Another point to make here is that Paul would not have the ideas of rhetoric or reasoning in mind when writing this verse. Most of Paul's writing is rhetoric and argumentation for various positions. Rather Paul is speaking about how people view things as foolish errantly or hastily. For example, the common assumption at the time that a divine man would never die such a shameful death on the cross. This assumption hardly seems obvious but is based on the further assumption that a divine being in the flesh would prioritize honor and not mercy. Thus even wisdom as factual knowledge often speaks of the traditions and assumptions of men and not their ability to use reason to come to logical conclusions or conclusions based on sound reasoning.
1 Corinthians 2:5
"so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (NIV)
This verse combines what we’ve discussed about faith and wisdom and thus we can apply what’s been said about those two concepts here by paraphrasing thusly; “so that your loyalty might not rest on human traditions, ideas and ways of living but on God’s power.” It is also important to add some context to this verse by quoting the verse before it; “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” This by itself casts doubt on any anti-rational interpretation as Paul was clearly interested in proving to his audience that what He taught was true.
Nevertheless, what does Paul mean when he says that our faith might not rest on human wisdom but God’s power? Given the popular rhetoric of the day it is plausible to suppose that Paul is speaking of wisdom here in the sense of merely what seems appealing or persuasive to men such as an impressive or inspirational speech. Thus Paul is telling his followers to not put their loyalty in men but in God as well as to not be persuaded by Paul's words but by the acts of God performed through Paul.
Conclusion; while this is by no means a complete scholarly exposition of these verses nor Biblical and ANE conceptions of wisdom and faith, it is clear from what has been discussed above that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is anti-rational.
1. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=692In regards to 1 additionally the concept of wisdom and foolishness has to do with moral and practical issues more than philosophy and head knowledge. Given this, 1 Corinthians 1:18 seems to be saying to the same people who practice such silly traditions of men as declaring loyalty to a single man the idea that someone died for them on the cross is moronic and stupid. Verse 18 does not then say that according to man-made philosophies and logic the cross is necessarily irrational. Its not even clear the v 18 commits a believer to hold that all non-believers see the cross as stupid and silly as again, proverbial literature is never meant to be taken in absolutes, despite the fact that many Christians desire to do so.
All this being said, a retort might rightly be given that the Hebrew conception of wisdom did relate a great deal to knowledge in a theoretical sense (aka head knowledge) even though such theoretical knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the term. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 is a good example of this sense in that it describes factual knowledge as wisdom, even the knowledge that one cannot know something. But as Jacobus Gericke points out the majority of the themes present in the Hebrew conception of wisdom revolve around practical or moral knowledge (6).
1 Corinthians 1:27
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong"
Much of what has been discussed above applies to this verse as well. What is implicit here is who Paul is speaking about, those who put traditions of men before the commands of God. Another point to make here is that Paul would not have the ideas of rhetoric or reasoning in mind when writing this verse. Most of Paul's writing is rhetoric and argumentation for various positions. Rather Paul is speaking about how people view things as foolish errantly or hastily. For example, the common assumption at the time that a divine man would never die such a shameful death on the cross. This assumption hardly seems obvious but is based on the further assumption that a divine being in the flesh would prioritize honor and not mercy. Thus even wisdom as factual knowledge often speaks of the traditions and assumptions of men and not their ability to use reason to come to logical conclusions or conclusions based on sound reasoning.
1 Corinthians 2:5
"so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (NIV)
This verse combines what we’ve discussed about faith and wisdom and thus we can apply what’s been said about those two concepts here by paraphrasing thusly; “so that your loyalty might not rest on human traditions, ideas and ways of living but on God’s power.” It is also important to add some context to this verse by quoting the verse before it; “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” This by itself casts doubt on any anti-rational interpretation as Paul was clearly interested in proving to his audience that what He taught was true.
Nevertheless, what does Paul mean when he says that our faith might not rest on human wisdom but God’s power? Given the popular rhetoric of the day it is plausible to suppose that Paul is speaking of wisdom here in the sense of merely what seems appealing or persuasive to men such as an impressive or inspirational speech. Thus Paul is telling his followers to not put their loyalty in men but in God as well as to not be persuaded by Paul's words but by the acts of God performed through Paul.
Conclusion; while this is by no means a complete scholarly exposition of these verses nor Biblical and ANE conceptions of wisdom and faith, it is clear from what has been discussed above that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is anti-rational.
2. http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
3. http://skipmoen.com/tag/proverbs-35-6/
4. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.html
5. http://www.tektonics.org/af/follywise.html
6. http://www.academia.edu/1489237/The_concept_of_Wisdom_in_the_Hebrew_Bible_-_a_philosophical_clarification
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)