Justin Taylor's Blog, page 57

78 Years Ago Today: John Stott’s Conversion

John Stott (b. 27 April 1921) was confirmed in the Anglican Church in 1936, at the age of 15. But he was not converted until February 13, 1938, when he heard 40-year-old Rev. E.J.H. Nash deliver an address to the Christian Union at Rugby School.

E. J. H. Nash (1898-1982)

Stott recalls:

Richard Baxter, “Ye Holy Angels Bright”

1 Ye holy angels bright,

Who wait at God’s right hand,

Or through the realms of light

Fly at your Lord’s command,

Assist our song, or else the theme

Too high doth seem for mortal tongue.

2 Ye blessèd souls at rest,

Who ran this earthly race

And now, from sin released,

Behold your Savior’s face,

God’s praises sound, as in His light

With sweet delight ye do abound.

3 Ye saints, who toil below,

Adore your heavenly King,

And onward as ye go

Some joyful anthem sing;

Take what He gives, and praise Him still,

Through good or ill, who ever lives.

4 My soul, bear thou thy part,

Triumph in God above,

And with a well-tuned heart

Sing thou the songs of love;

Let all thy days till life shall end,

Whate’er He send, be filled with praise.

Amen.

HT: J.I. Packer

Sola Scripture? Three Views in Church History on the Relationship between Tradition and Scripture

Keith Matthison, author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), once wrote a helpful overview piece on Scripture and tradition for Modern Reformation.

I’ve reprinted a section of it below, adding my own headings.

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself.

Tradition 1 (One-Source)

In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”

Tradition 2 (Two Sources)

The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition “Tradition 2″ (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred.

Magisterial Reformers: Let’s Return to Tradition 1 Not the Innovation of Tradition 2

When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent.

(Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed “Tradition 3,” in which the “Magisterium of the moment” is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of this brief essay.)

Radical Reformers and 18th Century Americans: Let’s Abandon Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and Go with Tradition 0

At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.

In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed “solo” Scriptura instead of sola Scriptura, attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church. Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.

Francis Schaeffer on the Double Task of the Christian

Francis Schaeffer:

The Christian really has a double task.

He has to practice both God’s holiness and God’s love. The Christian is to exhibit that God exists as the infinite-personal God; and then he is to exhibit simultaneously God’s character of holiness and love.

Not His holiness without His love: this is only harshness.

Not His love without His holiness: that is only compromise.

Anything that an individual Christian or Christian group does that fails to show the simultaneous balance of the holiness of God and the love of God presents to a watching world not a demonstration of the God who exists but a caricature of the God who exists.

—Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of Love, in A Christian View of the Church: The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 4 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 193-94.

Oliver O’Donovan on Why Tradition Is Essential to Sustaining Communal Identity

Oliver O’Donovan explains that the word “tradition” refers to two things: (1) an action, and (2) a possession.

In the first sense it is the activity by which one shares in the community, receiving and contributing.

In the second sense it is the reserve of practices and communicative patterns received from the past—but only those which continue to command recognition, that is, which have been effectively communicated down to the present time.

He explains why tradition in this sense is so important:

The essential thing about tradition is that it creates social continuity.

It binds the communal action of the present moment to the communal actions of past moments.

He then distinguishes tradition from traditionalism:

What we often call “traditionalism,” the revival of lapsed tradition, is, properly speaking, a kind of innovation, making a new beginning out of an old model. This may or may not be sensible in any given instance, but it is not a tradition.

The claim of tradition is not the claim of the past over the present, but the claim of the present to that continuity with the past which enables common action to be conceived and executed.

The paradigm command of such tradition, O’Donovan argues, is “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you” (Ex. 20:12). O’Donovan argues that it’s a mistake to think this passage is primarily concerned with the duties of children:

The duties of children are purely responsive to the duty of parents to be to their children what their parents were to them. This is a command addressed to adults, whose existence in the world is not self-posited but the fruit of an act of cultural transmission, which they have a duty to sustain. The act of transmission puts us all in the place of receiver and communicator at once. The household is envisaged as the primary unit of cultural transmission, the “father and the mother” as representing every existing social practice which it is important to carry on. Only so can community sustain itself within its environment, “the land which the Lord your God gives you.” No social survival in any land can be imagined without a stable cultural environment across generations. By tradition society identifies itself from one historical moment to the next, and so continues to act as itself. . . .

—Oliver O’Donovan, Common Objects of Love: Moral Reflection and the Shaping of Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 33f.

An Unexamined Assumption: Can Discrimination or Bias Be Inferred from Statistical Inequalities?

Thomas Sowell on a question many answer with confidence but may have never examined:

Virtually no one has seriously denied that discrimination and bias have resulted in various inequalities.

It is the converse proposition—that discrimination or bias can be inferred from statistical inequalities—which is the reigning non sequitur of our times, both intellectually and politically.

To prove statistically that the observed patterns of representation or reward are not due to random chance is considered to be virtual proof that they are due to discrimination—not to performance differences.

The implicit assumption is that a more or less even or random representation or reward for performance could be expected, in the absence of institutional or societal policies and practices which disadvantage one group compared to others.

Yet there has never been an even or random world, even in matters not controlled by the biases of others. Not only performance differences but also differences in luck and in many other factors wholly disrupt the simple picture of an even, regular, or balanced world. . . .

What is wholly unsubstantiated is the prevailing assumption that the world would be random or even, in the absence of discrimination or bias by individuals, institutions, or “society.”

—Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (New York: Touchstone, 1999), 62-63.

D.A. Carson’s FAQ (with Answers) on Scriptural Authority in the History of the Church

Yesterday I mentioned the publication of The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, a 1,248-page tome edited by D. A. Carson (Eerdmans, 2016). I included the full list of contributors with their chapter titles and the questions they answer.

Following an orienting chapter by Carson, the first part covers historical topics across nine chapters:

2. Scripture in the Patristic Period to Augustine

3. The Bible in Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy

4. Natural Philosophy and Biblical Authority in the Seventeenth Century

5. German Pietism and Scriptural Authority

6. Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture

7. The “Old Princetonians” on Biblical Authority

8. Accommodation Historically Considered

9. Karl Barth on Holy Scripture

10. Roman Catholic Views of Biblical Authority from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present

Below are D.A. Carson’s summarizing FAQs from each of these chapters.

1. D. A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion”

1.1 Why is the authority of Scripture so hotly debated today?

We live in a time when many competing voices scramble to impose their own understandings of life, culture, spirituality, and much else — the “age of authenticity,” in the words of Charles Taylor, when what makes us “authentic” is that we adopt an intrinsic suspicion of authorities so that we can be free to be ourselves. From the Bible’s perspective, this is, in part, a reprehensible flight from God, a form of idolatry.

1.2 Why are the issues surrounding the Bible’s authority so complicated?

A good deal of the complexity is bound up with the range of disciplines that affect how we understand biblical authority. These include disputes about how the Bible’s authority has been understood at various points in church history, what truth is, the nature of revelation, principles of interpretation, how different literary genres in the Bible have different ways of making their own rhetorical appeals, text criticism, epistemology, and much, much more.

1.3 Isn’t the word “inerrancy” pretty useless, since it has to be defined very carefully and technically for it to be deployed at all?

There are very few words in the pantheon of theological vocabulary that don’t have to be carefully defined if accurate communication and serious discussion are to take place. Consider, after all, “God,” “justification,” “apocalyptic,” “Spirit,” “regeneration,” “sanctification,” and many more. That a word, to be useful in theological debate, must be defined carefully (e.g., inerrancy has nothing necessary to do with precision, and certainly understands that the sacred Scriptures are written in a wide diversity of sentences and clauses, not all of which are propositions) is no reason not to use it.

 

2. Charles E. Hill, “‘The Truth Above All Demonstration': Scripture in the Patristic Period to Augustine”

2.1 What role did Scripture play in the writings of the patristic period?

Scripture lay at the very center of the intellectual and spiritual life of the Christians of the early centuries of the Christian church.

2.2 Wasn’t the formation of the New Testament canon a rather late development?

A careful reading of the primary sources shows that the notion of canon, as a given set of inspired and authoritative writings, was well established in the second century.

2.3 Didn’t the fathers apply the term “inspiration” to writings other than the writings of the New Testament?

Yes, once in a while they did — but then they deployed other terms to show that only the biblical writings were authoritative and free from error.

3. Robert Kolb, “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy”

3.1 Did Luther and Calvin provide substantial innovation as they worked out their doctrine of Scripture?

Both Reformers were heirs to the high view of Scripture they received from the early church and from medieval scholars. Their contribution, so far as their understanding of the nature of Scripture is concerned, largely lay in freeing up the Bible from its domestication by certain ecclesiastical traditions and by scarcely constrained allegorizing. Theologically, there is a Christ-centeredness and a justification-centeredness in their handling of Scripture that sets them apart, but such exegesis did not exclude attention to the Bible as the authority for other matters in the church’s and believer’s life.

3.2 Doesn’t Luther’s well-known comment that James is “an epistle of straw” demonstrate that he was prepared to dismiss Scripture when it didn’t suit his theology?

On the contrary. In the same Prefaces, Luther insists that James is “a good book because it sets up no human teaching but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” But Luther tended to evaluate the weight of any biblical text by the clarity with which it expounded Christ and justification. Hence his characterization of James as an “epistle of straw.”

3.3 How similar are the views of Luther and Calvin on the doctrine of Scripture?

Both of these Reformers embraced the absolute authority of God’s Word, from which the Holy Spirit, who brought the texts into being through human authors, still speaks. Slight differences emerge in their formulations: Luther, for instance, was significantly influenced by Ockham, and Calvin was not. Again, Luther does not use the word “inspiration” as much as Calvin, but he does insist that the Holy Spirit was truly present in the origin and is truly present in the use of Scripture.

4. Rodney L. Stiling, “Natural Philosophy and Biblical Authority in the Seventeenth Century”

4.1 Weren’t the scientists of the seventeenth century, such as Kepler, Galileo, and Newton (like Copernicus a century earlier), essentially an early species of secularists whose scientific methods left them free to challenge the authority of Scripture?

No. All these men were Christians or Deists who continued to reverence Scripture. But hermeneutically they tended to argue that when it comes to the natural order the Bible tends to speak phenomenologically (to use the word we prefer today). And some of these scientists cited Scripture, with all its authority, to justify learning about God and his ways by studying the natural order God had made.

4.2 Didn’t theologians systematically try to marginalize the scientists?

In the seventeenth century, the Westminster divines were themselves moving in the direction of recognizing secondary causes in nature. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5 (on Providence), God is identified as the “first cause”; indeed, the divines affirmed that while “God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, . . . yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” The supporting footnote cites half a dozen biblical texts that depict ordinary cause-and-effect relationships in the natural order. In other words, they went out of their way to incorporate the findings and foci of scientists within a larger theological framework.

4.3 So when did a more skeptical approach to the Scriptures begin to surface among scientists?

Well into the eighteenth century — and even then the evidence is quite mixed.

5. John D. Woodbridge, “German Pietism and Scriptural Authority: The Question of Biblical Inerrancy”

5.1 Is it not the case that many Christians in the Pietist-Methodist-Holiness-Pentecostal traditions trace at least some of their roots to Spener and other German Pietists? And that includes their views on Scripture?

Yes, that much is certainly true.

5.2 Is it not the case that Spener and other early Pietists rejected inerrancy, owing in part to their reaction against Lutheran orthodoxy?

It is true that this position is often asserted, not least in the writings of Donald Dayton. But careful perusal of the primary sources themselves shows it simply isn’t the case. The early Pietists, by their own testimony, were solidly in the inerrantist camp. They did not reject Lutheran views of Scripture; rather, they constantly criticized Lutherans for not living up to their own theology.

6. Thomas H. McCall, “Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture: Historic Affirmations and Some Contemporary Issues”

6.1 Is it not true to say that the Wesleyan tradition on Scripture descends from Pietism, such that Pietist views on Scripture controlled the stances of the early Wesleyans?

There was much more crossover of traditions than is sometimes envisaged. In other words, early Wesleyans were shaped not only by Pietism but also by Scholasticism and other traditions — and all of those traditions were committed to the classic traditional understanding of the nature of Scripture.

6.2 Why then do many Wesleyans explicitly reject the traditional stance on inerrancy?

Some do so because they misread the primary documents of Pietism (see FAQs 5.1 and 5.2 above), or because they distance themselves from the mainstream Wesleyan heritage on this subject. Others reject the traditional Wesleyan stance on Scripture because they think it is incompatible with the Free Will Defense. William Lane Craig has demonstrated, however, that their logic is not unassailable.

6.3 Haven’t some Wesleyans (especially William Abraham) argued that, since the Bible has been given for purposes of transformation rather than information (which seems to be the focus of attention in inerrantist formulations), the emphases of the traditional position on truth are fatally misdirected?

Indeed, that is one of the arguments sometimes deployed. The argument expresses a legitimate concern, but it does not undermine the traditional view in any way. On the contrary, it encourages us to appreciate the classical view even more. A small analogy helps: a physician acquires a body of knowledge in order to heal people — but it is altogether desirable that that body of knowledge be true and reliable if real healing is to take place. One cannot legitimately sideline the importance of the truthfulness of Scripture by observing, rightly, that the purpose of Scripture is more than truth-telling.

7. Bradley N. Seeman, “The ‘Old Princetonians’ on Biblical Authority”

7.1 Who are the “Old Princetonians,” and why are they brought up in connection with debates over the nature of Scripture?

The expression “Old Princetonians” refers to the remarkably learned and influential theologians and biblical scholars at Princeton Seminary in the nineteenth century (including Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and Benjamin B. Warfield — the latter working into the beginning of the twentieth century). It is commonly alleged that in their defensive stance against the inroads into the doctrine of Scripture in their day, they ended up introducing innovations into the doctrine, including the affirmation of inerrancy, that were unknown before them.

7.2 What, more precisely, are the Old Princetonians alleged to have done?

Under the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism and a Baconian view of science, the Old Princetonians allegedly viewed the Bible as a repository of inerrant truths, which simply needed to be carefully gathered together in a scientific fashion so as to compile a reliable systematic theology.

7.3 Are the charges against the Old Princetonians justified?

While they were men of their time who undoubtedly made mistakes, the Old Princetonians rightly understood their defense of inerrant Scripture to stand within the classic and common heritage of the church. In their day, novel critiques of church teaching were being consolidated on Kantian or Hegelian foundations. Their defense faithfully restated church teaching and included pointed critiques of Baconianism and Scottish Common Sense Realism. As Seeman puts it, “The Princetonian reaffirmation and defense of the church’s teaching on biblical authority is not beholden to an indefensible epistemological stance.” Not only so, but both Hodge and Warfield display remarkable profundity in sorting through how systematic theology is responsibly constructed — a far cry from seeing it as mechanical compilation of facts.

8. Glenn S. Sunshine, “Accommodation Historically Considered”

8.1 What is meant by “accommodation”?

In the fathers, the Middle Ages, and Calvin, the topic of accommodation arose partly out of reflection on the ways in which an infinite and holy God could communicate with his finite and sinful image-bearers (he could do so by “accommodating” himself to their limitations), and partly as a way to explain apparent contradictions in the text of Scripture (the language is frequently accommodated to the understanding of common human beings — e.g., by describing some things in phenomenological language, which of course we still do today when we say things such as “The sun will rise this morning at 5:39 a.m.”).

8.2 Is that how accommodation is commonly understood today?  

In the late Enlightenment, while some followed Spinoza and simply rejected biblical authority, many scholars maintained some sort of notion of biblical authority but under the influence of Socinus, whose views of accommodation included the assertion that the many ostensible errors in Scripture were no more than God’s “accommodation” to flawed human beings. Those who presuppose this more recent view of accommodation, with its ready embrace of many kinds of error, are misleading when they say that accommodation has always been part of sophisticated treatments of Scripture. Although formally true, the statement hides the way the notion of accommodation has changed in recent centuries. Discussion of the topic has become complex. Arguably Calvin saw accommodation as a theological category tied to God’s grace toward us, and exemplified in some ways in the incarnation. That is a far cry from seeing it as a merely rhetorical and exegetical device.

9. David Gibson, “The Answering Speech of Men: Karl Barth on Holy Scripture”

9.1 How come Karl Barth’s views of Scripture have come back to be the focus of so much attention today?

There are at least three reasons. First, Barth was certainly the most prolific and perhaps creative theologian of the twentieth century, so it is no wonder that people study his writings. Second, Barth’s thought is profoundly God-centered, profoundly Christ-centered, profoundly grace-centered. And third, his view of Scripture, though not quite in line with traditional confessionalism, is reverent, subtle, and complex, so scholars keep debating exactly what he was saying.

9.2 Doesn’t Barth say that the Bible isn’t the Word of God, but becomes the Word of God when it is received by faith?

In fact, he can affirm both; the question is, What does he mean? The “becoming” language is for Barth tied up with his insistence that the initial revelation of the Word and its revelation to the individual believer are tied up together in one gracious whole. The same is true with Barth’s treatment of inspiration. He refuses to speak of the Bible as itself inspired, but links together what is traditionally called the inspiration of Scripture and the illumination of the believer into one whole.

9.3 Doesn’t Barth claim to stand in line with the Reformers, so far as his view of Scripture is concerned?

Yes, he does, but he is clearly mistaken. Comparison with Calvin, for example, casts up not a few instances where Calvin happily speaks of the inspiration of Scripture, the text itself being God-breathed, regardless of whether or how believers receive it. Barth prefers to speak of the out-breathing of the Spirit of God in both the text and the believer, thus distancing himself both from the exegesis of Scripture and from the Reformed tradition. He appears to recognize his distance from Calvin in CD II/2, §3e. 9.4 Does Barth allow that there are errors in Scripture? Yes, he does, though he refuses to identify them (but cf. his treatment of the fall of angels in 2 Peter and Jude, CD III/3, §51, where he finds a theological error in Scripture). For Barth, this seems to be part of the humanness of Scripture, though he insists that God’s revelatory authority encompasses the whole, errors and all. That in turn inevitably raises questions about how passages of Scripture that include errors (not identified) can be said to carry the revelatory authority of God.

10. Anthony N. S. Lane, “Roman Catholic Views of Biblical Authority from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present”

10.1 Does the Roman Catholic Church share the same view of Scripture that you have been describing as “classic” or “traditional”?

Yes. Indeed, across many centuries and until quite recently, Catholicism has been one of the mainstays in holding that the Bible is uniquely inspired by God, and inerrant. But that is not the whole picture. Catholicism has also held that tradition has an authority comparable to that of Scripture, and in any case the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the church, alone determines what Scripture and tradition mean. Thus, so far as understanding the nature of Scripture goes, the Reformers’ argument with Rome was not so much over the nature of Scripture as over its exclusive sufficiency.

10.2 What do you mean by “until quite recently”? Have the views of Catholicism as to the nature of Scripture changed?

For the last century or so, Catholicism has gradually recognized more of the human dimensions of Scripture than had formerly been the case. Vatican II, however, signaled a more dramatic shift. Influenced in part by liberal Protestantism, the Catholic Church in Vatican II (1962-65) tended to preserve much of the traditional language, while allowing to stand in Scripture a lot of things that an earlier generation would have understood to be errors.

10.3 Is this proving divisive in the Roman Catholic Church?

Arguably not as divisive as in various forms of Protestantism, in part because the Magisterium preserves its voice of authority as to the teachings of the church, regardless of changes in the way Scripture is perceived.

A Massive New Book on the Authority of Scripture, Edited by D. A. Carson

Years in the making, Eerdmans has now published The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, a 1,248-page tome edited by D. A. Carson.

Here is their description:

In The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures thirty-seven first-rate evangelical scholars present a thorough study of biblical authority and a full range of issues connected to it. Recognizing that Scripture and its authority are now being both challenged and defended with renewed vigor, editor D. A. Carson assigned the topics that these select scholars address in the book. After an introduction by Carson to the many facets of the current discussion, the contributors present robust essays on relevant historical, biblical, theological, philosophical, epistemological, and comparative-religions topics. To conclude, Carson answers a number of frequently asked questions about the nature of Scripture, providing cross-references to the preceding chapters. This comprehensive volume by a team of recognized experts will be the go-to reference on the nature and authority of the Bible for years to come.

The chapters are broken down as follows:

Part 1: Historical Topics (9 chapters)
Part 2: Biblical and Theological Topics (14 chapters)
Part 3: Philosophical And Epistemological Topics (6 chapters)
Part 4: Comparative Religions Topics (4 chapters)
Part 5: Thinking Holistically (1 chapter)
Part 6: FAQs (1 chapter)

At the end of the book, D. A. Carson provides a summarizing FAQ, where he provides summary answers to the questions raised in each chapter.

I have outlined below the contributor, the chapter title, and the questions addressed. Tomorrow, I will provide Carson’s answers for the historical section.

1. D. A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion”

1.1 Why is the authority of Scripture so hotly debated today?

1.2 Why are the issues surrounding the Bible’s authority so complicated?

1.3 Isn’t the word “inerrancy” pretty useless, since it has to be defined very carefully and technically for it to be deployed at all?

Part 1: Historical Topics

2. Charles E. Hill, “‘The Truth Above All Demonstration': Scripture in the Patristic Period to Augustine”

2.1 What role did Scripture play in the writings of the patristic period?

2.2 Wasn’t the formation of the New Testament canon a rather late development?

2.3 Didn’t the fathers apply the term “inspiration” to writings other than the writings of the New Testament?

3. Robert Kolb, “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy”

3.1 Did Luther and Calvin provide substantial innovation as they worked out their doctrine of Scripture?

3.2 Doesn’t Luther’s well-known comment that James is “an epistle of straw” demonstrate that he was prepared to dismiss Scripture when it didn’t suit his theology?

3.3 How similar are the views of Luther and Calvin on the doctrine of Scripture?

4. Rodney L. Stiling, “Natural Philosophy and Biblical Authority in the Seventeenth Century”

4.1 Weren’t the scientists of the seventeenth century, such as Kepler, Galileo, and Newton (like Copernicus a century earlier), essentially an early species of secularists whose scientific methods left them free to challenge the authority of Scripture?

4.2 Didn’t theologians systematically try to marginalize the scientists?

4.3 So when did a more skeptical approach to the Scriptures begin to surface among scientists?

5. John D. Woodbridge, “German Pietism and Scriptural Authority: The Question of Biblical Inerrancy”

5.1 Is it not the case that many Christians in the Pietist-Methodist-Holiness-Pentecostal traditions trace at least some of their roots to Spener and other German Pietists? And that includes their views on Scripture?

5.2 Is it not the case that Spener and other early Pietists rejected inerrancy, owing in part to their reaction against Lutheran orthodoxy?

6. Thomas H. McCall, “Wesleyan Theology and the Authority of Scripture: Historic Affirmations and Some Contemporary Issues”

6.1 Is it not true to say that the Wesleyan tradition on Scripture descends from Pietism, such that Pietist views on Scripture controlled the stances of the early Wesleyans?

6.2 Why then do many Wesleyans explicitly reject the traditional stance on inerrancy?

6.3 Haven’t some Wesleyans (especially William Abraham) argued that, since the Bible has been given for purposes of transformation rather than information (which seems to be the focus of attention in inerrantist formulations), the emphases of the traditional position on truth are fatally misdirected?

7. Bradley N. Seeman, “The ‘Old Princetonians’  on Biblical Authority”

7.1 Who are the “Old Princetonians,” and why are they brought up in connection with debates over the nature of Scripture?

7.2 What, more precisely, are the Old Princetonians alleged to have done?

7.3 Are the charges against the Old Princetonians justified?

8. Glenn S. Sunshine, “Accommodation Historically Considered”

8.1 What is meant by “accommodation”?

8.2 Is that how accommodation is commonly understood today?

9. David Gibson, “The Answering Speech of Men: Karl Barth on Holy Scripture”

9.1 How come Karl Barth’s views of Scripture have come back to be the focus of so much attention today?

9.2 Doesn’t Barth say that the Bible isn’t the Word of God, but becomes the Word of God when it is received by faith?

9.3 Doesn’t Barth claim to stand in line with the Reformers, so far as his view of Scripture is concerned?

10. Anthony N. S. Lane, “Roman Catholic Views of Biblical Authority from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present”

10.1 Does the Roman Catholic Church share the same view of Scripture that you have been describing as “classic” or “traditional”?

10.2 What do you mean by “until quite recently”? Have the views of Catholicism as to the nature of Scripture changed?

10.3 Is this proving divisive in the Roman Catholic Church?

Part 2: Biblical and Theological Topics

11. Stephen G. Dempster, “The Old Testament Canon, Josephus, and Cognitive Environment”

11.1 Is there scholarly consensus on when the Old Testament canon was more or less stable?

11.2 What is the nature of the evidence that these two positions are fighting over?

12. V. Philips Long, “‘Competing Histories, Competing Theologies?’ Reflections on the Unity and Diversity of the Old Testament(s’ Readers)”

12.1 Why do the substantive differences among scholars regarding the history of Israel matter to our Christian faith?

12.2 Then the more pressing question becomes, Why do these substantive differences regarding the history of Israel exist? Why can’t scholars agree on such matters?

12.3 In order to preserve discussion, might it not be a good thing for the supernaturalists to engage in some discussion on a kind of “as if ” basis — that is, to play by the rules of the philosophical naturalists, not because they espouse them, but “as if ” they were right in order to see how far the study of the texts can take us on this reduced basis?

13. Peter J. Williams, “Ehrman’s Equivocations and the Inerrancy of the Original Text”

13.1 Does it make any sense to affirm that the Bible is inerrant in the original, when we do not possess the autographa?

13.2 What do you mean by the “multivalence” of these expressions?

13.3 What difference does this make for discussions about inerrancy?

14. Simon Gathercole, “E Pluribus Unim? Apostolic Unity and Early Christian Literature”

14.1 Haven’t many scholars demonstrated that in its origins Christianity was highly diverse, theologically speaking, and that unity of doctrine was gradually and rigidly enforced by the group that viewed itself alone as orthodox, a process that took three or four centuries?

14.2 What evidence supports your claim?

15. Graham A. Cole, “Why a Book? Why This Book? Why the Particular Order within This Book? Some Theological Reflections on the Canon”

15.1 Isn’t the “canon” of biblical books a rather arbitrary collection?

15.2 When was the present order of the books in our canon established?

16. Peter F. Jensen, “God and the Bible”

16.1 How should we think of the relationship between God and his Word?

16.2 Isn’t it possible to believe the gospel without being too fussed about believing everything in the Bible?

16.3 Aren’t such demands a bit out of favor with contemporary demands for authentic freedom?

17. Henri A. G. Blocher, ‘God and the Scripture Writers: The Question of Double Authorship”

17.1 The notion of two authors, divine and human, standing behind the Scriptures is intrinsically difficult. How should we begin to think about these things?

17.2 But are not some models for thinking about this “dual authorship” better than others?

18. Bruce K. Waltke, “Myth, History, and the Bible”

18.1 Aren’t the “pre-history” chapters of the Bible — Genesis 1-11 — cast as myths?

18.2 Doesn’t the creation account in Genesis sound very much like (for instance) the Babylonian Enuma Elish and other ancient Near Eastern creation myths?

19. Barry G. Webb, “Biblical Authority and Diverse Literary Genres”

19.1 In their treatments of biblical authority, haven’t Christians paid too little attention to the Bible’s diverse literary genres?

19.2 How is the authority of Scripture related to Scripture’s diverse literary genres?

19.3 Are there any advantages bound up with the Bible’s highly diverse literary genres?

20. Mark D. Thompson, “The Generous Gift of a Gracious Father: Toward a Theological Account of the Clarity of Scripture”

20.1 What is meant by “the clarity of Scripture”?

20.2 But can’t the clarity of Scripture be abused? Don’t we need some sort of authoritative office, like the Catholic Magisterium, to teach us what is clearly being said when there are so many differences of opinion?

21. Osvaldo Padilla, “Postconservative Theologians and Scriptural Authority”

21.1 Do some of the postconservative theologians offer a helpful way forward?

21.2 Yet is it not the case today that most philosophers reject foundationalism?

22. Craig L. Blomberg, “Reflections on Jesus’ View of the Old Testament”

22.1 Isn’t it a bit circular to try to establish Jesus’ view of the Scriptures by appealing to the Gospels, which are part of the Scriptures?

22.2 So among the countless opinions regarding the reliability of the Gospels, how can you construct a historically credible approach to finding Jesus’ views on the authority of (antecedent) Scripture?

23. Douglas J. Moo and Andrew David Naselli, “The Problem of the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament”

23.1 Do not many scholars dismiss any notion of inerrancy, or even inspiration, on the ground that the NT writers use the OT very (shall we say) “creatively” — that is, with no apparent respect for the OT context?

23.2 Their argument seems like a good one. How would you respond?

24. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go Beyond What Is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the problem of Doctrinal Development”

24.1 What are the dangers in trying to move from Scripture to the construction of systematic theology?

24.2 But how should we move from Scripture to theology?

24.3 Do you have a name for this approach?

24.4 So are we supposed to go “beyond what is written” or not?

Part 3: Philosophical and Epistemological Topics

25. James Beilby, “Contemporary Religious Epistemology: Some Key Aspects”

25.1 What are we to make of the widespread cynicism over the ability to know anything about God?

25.2 What is the value of epistemology?

26. R. Scott Smith, “Non-Foundational Epistemologies and the Truth of Scripture”

26.1 Isn’t it possible to reject foundationalism utterly and still hold to inerrancy?

26.2 Should we then defend foundationalism as an epistemological stance that makes the defense of a high view of Scripture more coherent?

27. Michael C. Rea, “Authority and Truth”

27.1 Do the authority and truth of any text stand or fall together?

27.2 Is there no connection between authority and truth?

28. Paul Helm, “The Idea of Inerrancy”

28.1 Doesn’t a word such as “inerrancy” lose its attractiveness and utility if it has to be buttressed by endless qualifications, distinctions, and definitions?

28.2 So what simple definition of “inerrancy” might be advanced?

29. Richard Lints, “To Whom Does the Text Belong? Communities of Interpretation and the Interpretation of Communities”

29.1 Today there is increasing talk of “interpretive communities.” What does this expression mean?

29.2 So, then, are all interpretations by diverse communities equally valid, equally faithful?

30. Kirsten Birkett, “Science and Scripture”

30.1 Isn’t it true that Christians who defend the truthfulness of Scripture are in a long and losing conflict with science?

30.2 When science and the Bible seem to be in conflict, how should Christians proceed? How should they think things through?

Part 4: Comparative Religions Topics

31. Te-Li Lau, “Knowing the Bible Is the Word of God Despite Competing Claims”

31.1 At a deep level, aren’t the holy books of scriptures of various world religions really saying the same thing?

31.2 Aren’t the Bible’s self-attesting claims a form of circular argument that is essentially self-defeating?

31.3 Since the holy books of other religions make self-attesting claims in a fashion not dissimilar from the claims the Bible makes, how can one legitimately claim exclusive authority for the Bible?

32. Ida Glaser, “Qur’anic Challenges for the Bible Reader”

32.1 Do Muslims view the Qurʾan, their holy book, in much the same ways in which Christians view the Bible, their holy book?

32.2. At least both sides have one set text, one holy book each, don’t they?

32.3 How, then, are Christians and Muslims to converse freely and knowledgeably with one another?

33. Timothy C. Tennent, “Can Hindu Scriptures Serve as a “Tutor” to Christ?”

33.1 In Hindu belief, where is revelation located? Do not Hindus have holy books?

33.2 Is it appropriate for Christians to view the Hindu sacred writings as a sort of Hindu equivalent to the Old Testament — a kind of preparation for Christ and the new covenant?

34. Harold Netland and Alex G. Smith, “Buddhist Sutras and Christian Revelation”

34.1 Do Buddhists possess their own “Bible,” their own sacred writings?

34.2 Do Buddhists hold that all these sacred writings convey revealed truth?

Part 5: Thinking Holistically

35. Daniel M. Doriani, “Take, Read”

35.1 Doesn’t a collection of essays like the ones in this volume sport the risk of making the Bible something that we examine, that we study, that we master, that we defend — instead of being God’s revelation to us, something we must understand and trust and obey, something to which we submit as we submit to God himself?

35.2 Then what is the way ahead?

Part 6: FAQs

36. D. A. Carson, “Summarizing FAQs”

David Powlison: “Depression and Suffering: Finding Hope and Healing for Ourselves and Others”

David Powlison, executive director of CCEF, gave a public talk at RTS Charlotte on January 18, 2016, addressing the topic of depression and suffering, offering counsel on finding hope and healing for ourselves and others.

You can watch it below:

Here is a brief outline of the talk:

1. Katharina von Schlegel, “Be Still, My Soul”

2. Five Questions on the Experience of Depression

Is “depression” the best word to use?
Is the experience essentially biological?
Is the experience essentially sinful?
What are the various factors that can come into play in this experience?
If there is no neat explanation or simple fix, then where is our point of contact for understanding this experience?

3. Psalm 25 and the Questions Strugglers Face

“Do I need help?”
“Do I trust you?”
“Will I be honest with you?”
“Do you understand me?”
“Will I consider what you say to me?”
“Will I take to heart what you say?”
“Will I act?”
“Will I persevere?”

4. The Heart of People Helping People: 2 Corinthians 1:4

The surprise of humility
The surprise of caring
The surprise of good questions
The surprise of careful listening
The surprise of relevance
The surprise of grace
The surprise of small obediences
The surprise of patient process

5. Edith Cherry, “We Rest on Thee”

For more resources on Christians battling depressions, go here.

Ken Myers: “What Is Culture?”

Ken Myers, founder and proprietor of Mars Hill Audio Journal:

Most anthropologists and sociologists define a culture as a way of life informed by and perpetuating a set of assumptions or beliefs concerning life’s meaning. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz, for example, offers a typical definition of culture as

an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes to life.

A culture is a system or network of abstractions (beliefs or attitudes) as well as specific things (e.g., books, songs, buildings, schools), which are sustained by conventional practices and institutions. Just as a garden is an ecosystem that includes soil, plants, insects, rainfall, patterns of sunlight, the effects of heat and cold, and weeding and fertilizing procedures, so a culture is a complex whole comprising elements that interact and influence one another.

But there is also, Myers claims, an irreducible incarnational aspect to human cultures:

Human cultures are more complex, since they also include beliefs, ideas, and the spiritual aspects of human personhood. But those intangible elements are only sustained by taking form. Cultures may be said to be inherently incarnational, the spirit necessarily taking flesh for a culture to be present.

Myers goes on to explain how cultures take shape in space and time:

Cultures take shape in space (through artifacts and practices) and also in time, through the transmission and perpetuation of a kind of legacy or inheritance. Missiologist Lesslie Newbigin writes that a culture is

the sum total of ways of living developed by a group of human beings and handed on from generation to generation.

Cultures may be said to exist for the sake of passing on from one generation to the next a vision of life well lived, a set of loyalties, a body of wisdom. Cultures cultivate the hearts, the minds, and the embodied actions of their current and their future members. They convey explicit beliefs through teaching and ritual, but at a more subtle level they convey a way of being in the world that renders some beliefs more plausible than others.

He then makes a theological turn:

Speaking more theologically, we may think of culture as what we make of Creation. Cultural artifacts from primitive tools to fine art are manufactured from the physical stuff of Creation. Such artifacts—together with the institutions, practices, and beliefs that call them forth—are often expressions of what we make of Creation in a figurative sense. Forms of cultural expression contain and convey assumptions about what kinds of beings we think we are and what we believe about the world that we inhabit.

What is most fundamentally cultivated by a culture is a posture or orientation to Creation, and thus to the Creator. This gives us a standard by which to evaluate cultural forms: Do they represent well the kinds of creatures we are and the kind of world in which God has placed us?