11 comments

1. In regards to number two, I think this is a very important question but unfortunately it is one of those subjects, in my observations, in which people seem to have difficulty discussing. I think it is important to realize humans have all of these tools. We have our God-given faculties, we have prayer, we have revelation, inspiration, we have the biblical texts, we have commentary, we have teachers and preachers, we have inspiration, etc. We have several tools at our disposal and one of the problems that I see in these discussions occurs when a person believes that the other side came to the wrong conclusion. They feel a need to explain why this is so. How can they account for this? They often criticize the tool that was used, or argue that the tool wasn’t used correctly or that some tool was ignored, or argue one tool is better than another. In other words, the whole motivation for the discussion comes down to people trying to justify why their tool is better and why the other person came to the “wrong” conclusion.

   As a guideline, I think we need to realize that human life is such that people will come to different conclusions. Sometimes human beings just believe different things. People reading the bible have and will come to different conclusions. So I hope people as they discuss this issue will evaluate their motivations. Is the goal to try to prove one person is right and why the other is wrong? If that is the case, then any argument will do, and we can criticize any tool as long as that supports our argument. Discussions driven by those motivations often go nowhere. One thing that might perhaps prove helpful in discussing this question, just a thought, is to ask how persons in the New Testament went about trying to understand truth and what tools they used, because they needed to be able to discern God’s revelation as much as anyone. What tools did people use when someone came to them and told them that Jesus was the Messiah, or that that they no longer needed to do something anymore? Some believed that Jesus was the Messiah and others did not. What tools did Paul, Peter, Andrew, Philip or those that they engaged with later use in trying to determine and discover God’s revelation? Perhaps that might be one fruitful way to discuss this kind of issue.

2. aquinas, in this discussion, usually LDS and Catholic friends fault the biblical revelation itself, that it is not anchored to biblical inerrancy.

   So this heightens the authority of the human intellect and senses as more than just tools always submitted to inspiration. Right? That is why I find myself reacting to the higher criticism of the Bible.

   Yet there is a place for lower textual criticism. God calls us to think and to use the gifts he has supplied us. And you and others are always welcome to evaluate and critique how I use my personal tools that God has given to me as I look and interpret and make modern application from the inspired scriptures.

   Would you consider this a fruitless discussion–how did Christ and the apostles to follow, place authority on written scripture.

3. Todd, I can understand that reaction. I think it is very unfortunate if anyone is trying to fault the revelation as given in the biblical record. I think the phrase ‘biblical inerrancy’ often causes misunderstandings. It should probably be shortened to ‘inerrancy’ because it is possible for a person to reject the specific idea of inerrancy but still believe firmly and fervently believe the bible contains the word of God. It isn’t the bible that certain people reject, it is inerrancy. Well, what is inerrancy? This is a problem, because I think often people are talking past each other on this point because they are using different definitions of inerrancy, and this can become a complex and technical issue. I understand that many people are offended if someone says they do not subscribe to inerrancy. And often when people try to describe why they do not hold to inerrancy they point to differences in the biblical text, and all too often this can seem like an attack on the bible. I hope that we can find better ways to discuss these ideas in a respectful and sensitive manner.

   I think you have correctly identified that in the LDS and Catholic faiths that the notion of ‘authority’ is different from Protestant notions of ‘authority.’ My understanding is that in the Protestant tradition, authority is derived from the bible (as opposed to the Church) which makes sense given the doctrine of sola scriptura. In fact, you couched your question using the phrase ‘biblical authority’ which seems to me to be more of a Protestant phrase. My view is that in the LDS and Catholic faiths, the role and importance of the bible canon isn’t diminished, rather the bible exists along side with the institutional church or the visible church which can enlighten and enhance our understanding of the text. Catholics see the Church and the biblical cannon existing side by side, and LDS see apostles and prophets existing side by side with scriptures. In other words, it isn’t a choice of one or the other but that both are a necessary and important part of the whole.

   Now, getting to your question of whether the LDS and Catholic view of authority would raise the importance of the tool of using the human intellect above inspiration, I don’t think this is the case, though I can see where you are coming from. My view is that the very act of reading the text is an act which involves the human faculties. Whether a person accepts sola scriptura or not one reads the text by using their human faculties. In fact, when one considers the amount of time that people spend in learning the Greek, Latin, Hebrew and spending an enormous amount of time learning hermeneutics and studying commentaries and books about the cultural and historical background of the text, I just don’t know whether one’s view of sola scriptura or inerrancy would change the amount of mental effort that goes into one grappling with the meaning of the text. Now, in regards to accepting inspiration, I think most believers whether LDS, Catholic or Protestant would agree that the scriptures are inspired, and that they are ‘God-breathed’ and thus would hope to receive inspiration in their life and in their understanding of God.

4. Thanks for your interaction, aquinas

   Could you read this short little article by Kevin, another Christian fundamentalist, and tell me what you think . . .

   http://www.sharperiron.org/2007/03/20/the-use-of-scripture-in-theology/

5. Thanks for the article Todd. Many of the guidelines in this article seem reasonable to me. The problem the article wrestles with is that we have the biblical text, and yet theologians often disagree over what the text means. How do we solve this problem? I agree with the article that even if a person tried to solve this problem by having one person decide what everything meant, that this wouldn’t solve the problem because everyone in turn would need to interpret that person. I agree with that. As long as we have different people reading the text, we are going to have different interpretations. To this author, the only solution is method or hermeneutics. He writes, “The only way to guard against the influence of pre-understanding and prejudice is through the right use of method.” Method is clearly important and yet the reality is that even well-trained scholars disagree over the appropriateness and reasonableness of methods used. I don’t think method is the solution to the problem of disagreements over the meaning of the text. I have more thoughts on the article, but perhaps you have specific questions you’d like me to address.

6. Aquinas, thanks fpr taking a moment to read the article. And yes, I do have more questions. Let me connect back with you on Monday. Have a good Sunday.

7. Catholics see the Church and the biblical cannon existing side by side

   Back to an earlier thought . . .

   Could you explain the Catholic view on scripture inspiration?

   A while back, I was reading the pope’s new book on Jesus. It seemed that in there, I remember the pope commenting on people’s views of the Bible.

   If I recall, the pope’s position seemed very close to the current LDS prophet’s position. And I remember getting heartburn. 🙂

   Now, I need to retrace my steps, find the book, so that I can better explain myself.

   I don’t think method is the solution to the problem of disagreements over the meaning of the text.

   Inspiration, what is trustworthy for truth, and Authority, who has the right to share truth are important undergirding topics. But right hermeneutics after one settles on what is inspired solves a heap of problems.

8. Alright, I finished reading the article you linked to this morning. I have some rough and unformed thoughts on it (warning – long post):

   “All good theology is based upon exegesis. It grows out of the careful handling of Scripture. Doctrinal propositions are merely human opinions until they are grounded firmly in the text of the Bible.”
   ———————-
   A good Protestant assumption, but one which the LDS reject. What was the state of theology in the ancient world? What was Moses’ concern with “theology” or Jeremiah’s? Would they have accepted this statement as true? Would they have even cared about formalized theology in the first place?

   ———————-
   “Most Christian theologians recognize the importance of Scripture for theology, and most aim to be biblical. Yet they disagree with each other frequently, sometimes about important questions. If all agree that good theology grows from the Scriptures, then how can they disagree so conspicuously?

   One explanation is human finiteness. Each theologian approaches the text of Scripture with certain prejudices already in place. Given the smallness of human understanding (not to mention the influence of human depravity), each has a tendency to read the Scriptures so as to justify these preconceptions.”
   ———————-
   Agreed. This is true on both sides. I would however, prefer not to throw about charges of human depravity since it’s a non-starter for dialogue. You simply have to assume the sincerity of your counterparts on the internet for the purposes of discussion. Otherwise the whole premise of internet discussion breaks down.
   ———————
   “Some (Roman Catholics, for example) have suggested that the only way to avoid this problem is to have some official, divinely sanctioned interpretation of the Scriptures. Even if such an interpretation were available, however, it would not remove the problem. The interpretation itself would have to be interpreted by the theologian, who would have to perform that task with all of the deficiencies that already affect the interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, each interpretation would require its own divinely sanctioned interpretation, ad infinitum. At the end of the day, Scripture and the whole history of interpretation would have to be taken to mean whatever the last official interpretation says it means—until the next official interpretation comes along.”
   ———————
   Mormonism faces this problem. If you want proof you can simply hang out on the Mormon blog Times and Seasons long enough and you will certainly witness a few people dueling with conflicting interpretations of statements from LDS prophets and apostles.

   The difference is that Mormon hierarchy does not overly concern itself with the pure preservation of theology. They are not trained theologians for the most part. They have a high degree of scriptural familiarity, but they do not possess any real academic training or discipline in their approach to theological or doctrinal purity. There is no Catholic “magisterium” in Mormonism.

   This is why LDS leadership plays to its strengths and avoids wading into sticky theological issues. LDS leadership largely confines its pronouncements to ethical concerns. It rarely weighs in on purely academic theological matters. There hasn’t been anyone in the mold of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young for a long time. Just as long periods of the Biblical history saw little new prophesy, I also think the Restored Church is in such a period today. We have not seen a similar “opening of the heavens” to Joseph Smith’s era. God’s pronouncements today seem limited to minor course corrections, such as extending the Priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race (yes, in the big scheme of things, that was a “minor” event).
   ———————-
   “The only way to guard against the influence of pre-understanding and prejudice is through the right use of method. As theologians have become more aware of the influence of prejudice, they have also begun to emphasize the importance of sound theological method. Discussions of theological method must cover several topics, but one of the most important is the correct use of Scripture. Poor uses of Scripture lead to a deficient theological method, which in turn results in bad theology.”
   ———————-
   This seems like a good idea on its face, but it seems to fall prey to a sort of ivory-tower academic focus in Protestantism and Catholicism that I have witnessed over the past few years of actually paying attention. The more practical and accessible religion of the Sermon on the Mount is being a bit overwhelmed by a lot of scholarly baggage. The academicians in mainline Christian theology are placing themselves as the sole mediators of the Bible. You can now only approach Christ via “sound scholarly method.” This is inevitable as mainline Christianity has thrown its lot in with an over-emphasis on purely ethereal, non-practical, theological concerns.

   There is undoubtedly a place for rigorous scholarly discipline with respect to the scriptures. But is this the ONLY valid approach to scripture. Does an entire religion really wish to endorse a scholarly straightjacket on the Word of God?

   I would say no. The scholar can have his disciplines, and should be encouraged to make his case, compete in the market place of ideas, and see if it will persuade. But we cannot allow religion to be restricted and held back by the scholars. The effect would be to place layer-upon-layer of academic checks and balances upon God Himself. We would be painting ourselves into a theological corner. After all, we have centuries of logical inquiry that have brought us to this point, it would simply be too wrenching and painful to go back to the drawing board, and start from square-one.

   If you accept the Christian notion of flawed humanity, you must, absolutely MUST, always be positioning yourself where you are willing to “go back to square-one” if God requires it of you. This means we simply cannot afford to take theologians too seriously. They have a lot of good points, and the weight of their work is impressive. But THEY COULD BE WRONG. And what then?

   Mormonism’s open approach to doctrine has its frustrations and drawbacks to be sure. But I think this openness puts us in a far less dangerous position than mainline Christianity, which I would argue, has painted itself into a corner it now can’t get out of. Mormons, by contrast, have an ability to adapt and roll with the punches, which I think makes us a little more receptive to any future messages from God, than mainline Christianity.
   ———————
   “One bad use of Scripture is to overweight it with other sources. Whether they admit it or not, all theologians draw upon sources other than Scripture. They have to because theology is always more than the bare repetition of the text. Tradition, reason, and experience are among the most common sources that theologians use. These sources, however, function differently in a sound theology than Scripture does. If they are set alongside the Bible as parallel authorities, they often de facto overwhelm the authority of the text and lead to flawed conclusions. Good theologians must become aware of the extra-biblical sources upon which they are drawing, and they must chasten those sources and keep them in their proper place.”
   ——————–
   We would argue that this is exactly what human philosophy has done for mainline Christianity. The only difference between Catholics and Protestants in this regard is that the Catholics freely acknowledge their use of human philosophy in formulating theology, whereas the Protestants like to pretend they haven’t, but actually have, and still are. I think the Protestant claim to be arguing solely from Biblical exegesis is highly suspect. You guys are coming from the same place the Catholics are. You just aren’t admitting it.
   ———————-
   “A second faulty use of Scripture is to insert theological ideas into the silences of the text. Simply because a statement is not contradicted by Scripture does not mean that it is true. Even if it is true, that does not mean that it should be taught as doctrine. For instance, the assertion, “Some dogs have fleas,” is true, but no theologian has the right to teach this fact as a Christian doctrine. Sound theology must grow from the declarations and implications of the text. Christians only have the right to teach doctrines that are taught by the Bible itself. At best, assertions that cannot be supported by the positive statements of Scripture are doctrinally trivial.”
   ———————
   This assumes that Mormons have to prove their case by appeal to the Bible.

   We don’t.
   ———————
   “A third defective use of Scripture is to argue from possibility rather than probability. This mistake is rather common among beginning students of theology. Asked to support a theological assertion, they reply that such-and-such a text could be taken to support it. A theology based upon mere possibilities, however, will almost never lead to correct doctrine. By stringing together possible interpretations of Scripture, one could arrive at almost any conclusion. In fact, some seminary students make a game of doing exactly that. The only correct way to support a theological assertion is with a probable interpretation of Scripture—the more probable, the better.

   A fourth deficient use of Scripture is called proof-texting. Proof-texting occurs when someone assumes that the mere listing of verses or even references is sufficient to establish the truth of a theological proposal. Some people even assume that the longer the list, the more certain the doctrine must be. Listing Bible verses has little to do with the truth of the doctrines that they are supposed to support, however. The business of theology is not merely to cite passages from Scripture, but also to demonstrate how they are relevant. Certain questions must be answered before the citations can be taken as genuine evidence. Do the verses really address the question that the theologian is trying to answer? If so, do they say what the theologian claims? Do they actually support the proposal, do they undermine it, or do they leave it untouched? Theologians who are not willing to answer such questions have no right to claim a hearing for their ideas.”
   ——————–
   Mormons are as guilty of proof-texting as anyone. But I would argue that most (but not all) of the Evangelical arguments I have heard against Mormonism is essentially a series of isolated proof-texting – usually by inflating Romans to more importance than the rest of the entire New Testament.

   But to address his main point, the call for context is well-taken, but things get a bit sketchy when we ask him what is “probable” interpretation? His answer will likely reveal a lot of his own biases, prejudices, and assumptions.

   I’ve also noticed that Mormons rarely get the benefit of the doubt in this area from other Christian theologians. We often do proof-text – especially at the level of our lay membership. Any Evangelical who has Bible-bashed with Mormon missionaries or a Mormon co-worker knows this. But that doesn’t mean that proof-texting is all we do. We actually have some rather credible theological work that actually does take scriptures in context with an open-minded approach. But even when a Mormon scholar does this, she will still be inevitably accused of “proof-texting” by her opponents. Which makes me wonder if the accusation isn’t being opportunistically misused.

   Why is the Mormon argument proof-texting while the Evangelical argument isn’t? Because we haven’t adopted the popular assumptions that have traditionally informed Christianity? Is that a good enough reason for a dismissal?
   ——————–
   “A fifth harmful use of Scripture could be called highjacking the text. Theologians highjack the text when they make a biblical passage answer a question that it does not intend to address. The result of highjacking is that the text is forced to travel places that its author (and Author) never meant it to. Sometimes the text may be highjacked naïvely, for example, when a theologian is misled by superficial verbal or conceptual similarities. Other times it is done mendaciously: the theologian simply does not care whether the text is being abused. In any case, forcing Scripture to answer the wrong questions is a certain way to get the wrong answers.”
   —————
   Mormons are just going to have to live with this accusation. We believe in an open canon and ongoing revelation. If Joseph Smith introduced a new revelation from God, of course we would ascribe a new importance to a verse in scripture that supports, explains, or meshes well with that revelation. An example would be Paul’s statements on baptism for the dead that Mormons take as support of their temple practices. To the Evangelical scholar, that is, no doubt an example of hijacking the text. For us, it is simply using the Bible to interface with ongoing revelation. We are at an impasse.
   ————–
   “Of course, the above catalog of methodological errors is far from complete. A longer discussion would list more errors, and it would illustrate each error with an example or two from some recent theological pronouncement. Such illustrations are unfortunately easy to find. For the moment, however, the purpose of this essay is to raise a word of caution: not every theologian who uses the Bible is using it well.”
   —————–
   Point well taken. No doubt the author would consider Mormonism “bad theology.” But it’s a good point nonetheless.

   Don’t get me wrong. I actually like the article and think his warnings are very useful and valid. But the article still reflects a few very Protestant assumptions.

9. Seth, as I just read your post on Job and allegories,

   http://www.nine-moons.com/2007/10/12/crushing-my-inner-literalist/

   I don’t defend a literal hermeneutics to the Scripture out of fear that perhaps everything might come crashing down.

   I uphold a normative literal approach to the Scripture as I would in helping someone read his or her medicine bottle. The last thing that some of the seniors in our church would desire is for me to start waxing eloquently on all the various allegorical interpretations as possiblities in reading the directions for applying the medicine.

   Can you imagine any pharmacist doing this with someone sick and seeking healing?

10. I’d agree. The woman in Relief Society who made the assertion was a rather young and outspoken member of our Ward. I doubt I would have seen fit personally to “burst anyone’s bubble.” I also think that you are correct in being careful as a shepherd of the flock. There are essentials and non-essentials in sharing the good word. Whether Job is allegorical or not is probably non-essential.

    The problem however, arises when there is a need for “inoculation” as it is being termed on the bloggernacle, or “apologetics” as it is more generally termed. How should a religion respond to its critics who are seeking to undermine the faith of the flock? Is it best to pretend that Dawkins and Hitchens don’t exist, or is it better to provide the congregants with the tools needed to usefully encounter the critical material and come away with faith in Christ intact?

    Perhaps this is food for a different post though.

11. Seth, in regards to methods of hermeneutics, here is one fellow that is hoping to do his best to mock fundamentalists in their literal approach to the Bible

    http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp

    And of course, the liberal Christian Century (October 16, 2007) has him plastered on the front cover as an amusing hero.

    Normative, literal hermeneutics for the Christian? A. J. doesn’t have a clue.