Epistemology and the Nature of Scripture
I once read in a book by a Christian author that he had no use for the “red letter Bible” (the ones that have all of Jesus’ words in red) because “every word in the Bible is from God!” I used to think along these lines. I thought God had dictated the Bible to the authors, making God the real author. But is this view is really necessary for the Bible to be considered true, and does it really matter?
Certainly the Bible is of vital importance. After all, through it we come to know God made the world and everything in it. We come to know that mankind blundered and became corrupt, and thus also corrupted creation. We also come to know that Jesus came into the world to redeem it and will in the end be victorious. The Bible is certainly important, but is every word in it literally a word from the mouth of God?
If by ‘literal’ we mean that the Bible is comprised of words objectively spoken by God, I think we do have a problem. God did not ‘speak’ the Bible into existence. He did not even dictate the Bible into existence. Rather, “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible is not God literally talking to us today, but rather God’s truth being explained by individuals to others in a given historical context. God was involved in the writing of the Bible. However, God used people to communicate. It was people who did the physical writing, not God.
Perhaps our understanding of the Bible stems from our epistemology. Under a previous model of epistemology, knowledge had to be 100 percent certain to be knowledge (otherwise its opinion). Truth had to be 100 percent objective (meaning the knower could not play any part – as if this is ever possible). When we carry this epistemology to our understanding of the Bible, the text almost has to be words spoken by God. Any involvement on the part of humans would give it a subjective edge, thereby making it insufficiently reliable to some. An objectivist understanding of reality demands an objectivist view of the Bible.
Under a different model of epistemology (one that says that truth has both objective and subjective components, see Certainty and Knowledge for more) the idea that men of God were involved in composing the Bible is not a problem. The Bible still contains objective truth, but it is communicated subjectively, being written by people to people. The Bible as a set of historical documents becomes quite plausible. Different authors have different styles of writing, and this is laudable, because we see the same God working through many people across different times and cultures. Now the Bible does not have to be understood as a series of propositional truth statements.
The Bible is still of utmost importance. It is only through the Bible that we come to know the person and work of Jesus. But when we understand the Bible from outside common models of knowledge, we see the personalities behind the writings. We see Solomon struggling against utter nihilism in Ecclesiastes. We understand the utter joy and sorrows of David by reading the Psalms. We come to know Paul as a changed man as he writes half the New Testament. And by coming to understand the authors, we come to understand the God who carried them along.
Posts
Well said.
Josh,
You are giving up way too much (and unnecessarily so) in order to simply state that the authorship of the Bible is divine-human.
Also, in seeking to be more precise in your statements, you certainly can acknowledge that in some cases God did in fact speak in dictation form. Although it did not happen with great frequency, it would be incorrect to say that God never literally spoke the Scripture to the author.
Let me recommend, as a point of beginning, that you read through David Dockery’s primer on Christian Scripture for a better understanding of the doctrine of inspiration. It doesn’t mean what some critics say it means, but it does mean much more than you are stating here.
Grace and Peace,
Scott Lamb
p.s. If you commit to reading it, I would be happy to send you a copy of Dockery’s book. Just let me know.
Scott Lamb-
I would first like to welcome you to COAS.
My main point here is not that the Bible is both “divine and human.” Rather I was trying to illustrate how under a dogmatic objectivist understanding of reality the human component in scripture is problematic and can lead to a misunderstanding of the nature of scripture. I’m not sure that posts such as this are unnecessary. To say that scripture is “divine and human” is fine, but (like when we say this of Jesus) we must try to understand what we mean but such statements. I am also trying to approach the Bible from an epistemological stance.
You are right on when you say that God did dictate some parts of scripture (I was just reading some of them in Jeremiah and Micah). Of course, God was still speaking within history.
I was not aiming to explain the doctrine of inspiration in this post. I am familiar with the various views of inspiration (verbal-plenary, dictation theory…ext.) and the Westminster Confession’s definition and explanation of it (it is the same in the 2ed London Confession of 1689).
Thanks for the welcome. I have lurked around here for a long time with enjoyment, sharing both Christian belief and St. Louis rain with you guys.
My concern was that you seem to be taking a Stan Grenz turn epistemologically (consciously or not, I do not know), and then you apply your thoughts in the direction of the doctrine of revelation.
These epistemological concerns come at the beginning of any theological work worth its salt, usually in a section called “prolegomena”. Since these are foundational issues, you can see how getting them laid down correctly will affect all subsequent truth and doctrine.
Because these are extremely important issues, my lurking ended. LOL.
Grace and Peace,
Scott
I’m not the brightest bulb in the box (one of my favorite sayings) so can I put this in simpler terms to see if I’m getting this discussion?
Men moved by the Holy Spirit…the word is God-breathed…the LORD says…none of it will pass away until it is all accomplished…the word of the Lord stands forever…
I guess what I’m asking, isn’t it both? He moved men to write AND sometimes He dictated…does dictation make it more His word? I like the parts where Paul says he’s speaking on his own initiative and not as a command from the Lord. Seems to me he obviously knew when the Spirit was moving.
Michelle:
Love that! It reminds me of an quote I read somewhere…
“An intellectual says a simple thing in a difficult way. An artist says a difficult thing in a simple way!”
Keep smiling!
“Now the Bible does not have to be understood as a series of propositional truth statements.”
Hmmm… I’m not certain that understanding the Bible to be propositional truth stands in contradiction to the fact that God used secondary means. To say that our ability to understand truth makes that truth insufficient or deficient in some way is only semi-plausible, especially when approaching the Scriptures. While I understand (at least in part) the need for epistemological studies within the realm of Christianity, I must say that I tend to shrink from it when Scripture is involved, because it’s a bit of a sticky wicket. How far can we delve into Scriptural epistemology before discussing the concept of illumination? (I can almost hear the screech of ‘Cop out! Circular reasoning!’ bursting forth in staccato-like fashion:)
By way of question, what do you think of the imprecatory Psalms? Or perhaps Paul’s strong language in Galatians? No accusations or assumptions, just curious…
On somewhat related yet separate lines, did you see that Westminster Philly suspended Enns? Check out Justin Taylor’s blog. You might be interested, especially in the book reviews he linked to.
http://www.theologica.blogspot.com
Chuck Beem
Scott-
I had never heard of Stan Grenz, but after looking at a bit about him I can say he does not sound like a man I would follow after. My epistemology is a move away from foundationalism to coherence theory, but it is such of Ester Meek (a former adjunc proffessor at Covenant Seminary).
“These epistemological concerns come at the beginning of any theological work worth its salt, usually in a section called “prolegomena”. Since these are foundational issues, you can see how getting them laid down correctly will affect all subsequent truth and doctrine.”
I could not agree more. That is really what I was trying to do in this post. I was trying to move away from a purely objectivist/ foundationalist/ Cartisian stance on epistemology and ask how scripture looks when we understand truth to have objective and subjective elements.
Michelle-
“isn’t it both? He moved men to write AND sometimes He dictated…does dictation make it more His word?”
Yes, it is totally both! There are, of course, very few places where God dictated (and it is possible the way Micah would have thought of dictation would be different then our idea). I guess my deal is that I grew up thinking that the Biblical authors were little more than pens in God’s hand. I grew up thinking it was all God.
Chuck-
There is a difference between the Bible being propositionally true, and it being a set of propositional truth statements. I would affirm the former and deny the latter.
Perhaps I am dense, but could you possibly define the difference between the two?
Chuck-
A propositional statement truth statement is a statement that makes an assertion about reality. For example: I ate a sandwhich for lunch, Balls are round, or Your name is chuck. To be propositionally true is to mean that it is true (meaning that it partains to reality, or “touches” reality), and that the truth contained can be put into propositional statements to some extent.
Scripture is not a set of true sayings (propositional statement truth), but a set of historical document written by men and somehow inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would say the Bible is true in what it affirms. We can take the truth in the Bible and put it into propositional statements, but these statements cannot perfectly portray the truth of the Bible.
This is an epistemological issue than and not an attack to the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Could I add one word here?
“Scripture is merely ‘MERELY’ a set of true sayings…”
Is that in line with what you are trying to say, Josh?
Brad-
Not really. Scripture is not a set of propositional statements at all. Propositional statements (for one thing) give no credence to genre. For example, DA Carson points out why not to use Proverbs like a series of propositional statement,
“A proverb is neither a promise nor case law.”
It is true in it own right, but not as a propositional statement with all that entails.
Ahhhh… *light clicks on*… this helped: “Propositional statements (for one thing) give no credence to genre.”
Gotcha. Context, literary genre, all important aspects of good exegesis. That helps a ton. Thanks!
“The Bible still contains objective truth…” This statement is very loose and vague. Please define more. The main theological movement that began using such loose statements was modernis/liberalism, and we see were all such loose redefinitions have lead. I guess im always concerned when people redefine old categories. The sinking feeling in my gut always makes me immediately ask why, whats the agenda. Not saying your liberal or diabolical or anything silly like that but just curious as to what lead you to were you are in you epistemological understanding right now.
Grace and peace in abundance,
J.Klein
Justin-
What has lead to this “redefinition” is a shift away from modernism toward a new epistemology that understands the truth of Christianity as object, while being subjectively administrated.
The difference in liberalism’s redefinition was that it assumed the Bible to be merely the product of men and it removed its supernatural elements. Thereby rejecting Christianity (this is the argument made by Machen). Just because liberalism misunderstood the nature of the Bible, it does not mean conservative Christianity’s understanding is perfect.
“What has lead to this “redefinition” is a shift away from modernism toward a new epistemology that understands the truth of Christianity as object, while being subjectively administrated.”
I would like to hear you expound on some of the necessary implications and ramifications of this compared to say one of the other popular approaches to epistemology among evangelicalism today.
“I would like to hear you expound on some of the necessary implications and ramifications of this compared to say one of the other popular approaches to epistemology among evangelicalism today”
That is likely a couple of lifetimes of work.