Re: Hermeneutics, Divine & Human Authorship & Age of Earth
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:34 am
ICBI on Hermeneutics (cont.)
Extrabiblical Sources of Truth
I had a discussion in another thread where I compared interpreting Scripture within Biblical scholarship to that of understanding the natural world via science – just like scientists, when we hit a problem in Scripture we don't walk away and throw up our hands (more so in Evangelical circles). If we take Scripture seriously and as a source of truth then we try to resolve issues.
These issues aren't just limited to two or more passages in Scripture that appear to conflict, but could also be apparent conflicts with extra-Biblical sources of truth (e.g., science). Accordingly the ICBI defined the following statement:
Unlike science where hypothesises and theories can be tested, Scripture is somewhat more static and interpretations are limited to the text. That said, interpretations can be missed especially if clouded by previous thinking or tradition. Even missed for hundreds of years or a couple of millennia. Until, extra-biblical sources of truth shed new light.
Keep in mind that Christ is the way, the TRUTH and the life. So should we so raise one source of truth at the expense of another? No. Truth is truth no matter what the source. Scripture has no higher authority than other sources of truth, that is, unless we are to take a view that truth is subjective and merely matter of taste (or source). And TRUTH ought to lead one to Christ. This is I think Christianity's greatest strength — it's built upon truth.
Therefore when we run into Scriptural "issues" with extra-biblical knowledge about our universe, if we value Scripture as a source a special revelatory truth then it would pay us well to closely re-investigate old interpretations and that extra-biblical "knowledge". I'm not saying we should try to force meaning, but to re-look at the fuller scope of all possible meanings. To not do so I believe throws Scripture into disrepute as well as Christ who valued Scripture and IS THE TRUTH whom we represent.
Norman Geisler comments on this article in his Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics saying:
For example, let's say that you know something in nature contradicts what you see as a literal interpretation of Scripture. You're near certain that your understanding of the natural world can't be wrong. AND, you can see possible alternative interpretations in Scripture that may not be your first preference BUT do not contradict what to know via science. Which do you go with?
@Jac, you have problems resolving an understanding of the natural world with your interpretation of Scripture. You've admitted as much that you have no real scientific answers elsewhere. That such is a weakness on your view. I doubt you're very comfortable with that, but you seem fine with holding the two in tension.
Isn't this to a degree not loving God with your mind? I'm sure if it were Scriptural clashes of truth rather than natural ones, that you would leave no stone unturned to get at the correct interpretation. This shows to me a bias against other sources of truth — unnecessarily so.
Being content with what you believe is the correct and only interpretation of Scripture, in the face of hard to refute understandings of the natural world, is to me not only undignifying to Scripture but also to Christ who is Truth AND a cause of frustration to a knowledge of God for many who consider such Christian readings of Scripture as plainly "nuts". You can't just leave the natural truths unattended. As a Christian and theologian who loves God, You should treat them with the same seriousness that you do Scripture.
While the ICBI affirm the Historical-Grammatical method, the foundational goal of this is really to avoid liberal theology making a mish-mash of Scripture. Proper hermeneutics should allow us to get at the meaning of Scripture, and if Scripture is true and our interpretation is correct then contradictions will be avoided.
Let's say, as appears to be the case, that you are absolutely convinced that the Historical-Grammatical method necessitates your interpretation of the Genesis Creation as YEC. Yet, you are aware of an interpretation that fits external sources much better AND which many others who respect and even endorse the Historical-Grammatical believe is viable.
Doesn't this make you question that possibly you are wrongly using the hermeneutic, that you are possibly guilty of injecting a system of theology and Christian beliefs that you were taught that is leading you to error and facilitating an incorrect interpretation?
I'll here end with Geisler, an important member on the ICBI, who further comments:
Extrabiblical Sources of Truth
I had a discussion in another thread where I compared interpreting Scripture within Biblical scholarship to that of understanding the natural world via science – just like scientists, when we hit a problem in Scripture we don't walk away and throw up our hands (more so in Evangelical circles). If we take Scripture seriously and as a source of truth then we try to resolve issues.
These issues aren't just limited to two or more passages in Scripture that appear to conflict, but could also be apparent conflicts with extra-Biblical sources of truth (e.g., science). Accordingly the ICBI defined the following statement:
- CSBH Article XX: EXTRABIBLICAL SOURCES
WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching.
Unlike science where hypothesises and theories can be tested, Scripture is somewhat more static and interpretations are limited to the text. That said, interpretations can be missed especially if clouded by previous thinking or tradition. Even missed for hundreds of years or a couple of millennia. Until, extra-biblical sources of truth shed new light.
Keep in mind that Christ is the way, the TRUTH and the life. So should we so raise one source of truth at the expense of another? No. Truth is truth no matter what the source. Scripture has no higher authority than other sources of truth, that is, unless we are to take a view that truth is subjective and merely matter of taste (or source). And TRUTH ought to lead one to Christ. This is I think Christianity's greatest strength — it's built upon truth.
Therefore when we run into Scriptural "issues" with extra-biblical knowledge about our universe, if we value Scripture as a source a special revelatory truth then it would pay us well to closely re-investigate old interpretations and that extra-biblical "knowledge". I'm not saying we should try to force meaning, but to re-look at the fuller scope of all possible meanings. To not do so I believe throws Scripture into disrepute as well as Christ who valued Scripture and IS THE TRUTH whom we represent.
Norman Geisler comments on this article in his Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics saying:
- This article declares that a proper hermeneutics avoids contradictions, since God never affirms as true two propositions, one of which is logically the opposite of the other.
For example, let's say that you know something in nature contradicts what you see as a literal interpretation of Scripture. You're near certain that your understanding of the natural world can't be wrong. AND, you can see possible alternative interpretations in Scripture that may not be your first preference BUT do not contradict what to know via science. Which do you go with?
@Jac, you have problems resolving an understanding of the natural world with your interpretation of Scripture. You've admitted as much that you have no real scientific answers elsewhere. That such is a weakness on your view. I doubt you're very comfortable with that, but you seem fine with holding the two in tension.
Isn't this to a degree not loving God with your mind? I'm sure if it were Scriptural clashes of truth rather than natural ones, that you would leave no stone unturned to get at the correct interpretation. This shows to me a bias against other sources of truth — unnecessarily so.
Being content with what you believe is the correct and only interpretation of Scripture, in the face of hard to refute understandings of the natural world, is to me not only undignifying to Scripture but also to Christ who is Truth AND a cause of frustration to a knowledge of God for many who consider such Christian readings of Scripture as plainly "nuts". You can't just leave the natural truths unattended. As a Christian and theologian who loves God, You should treat them with the same seriousness that you do Scripture.
While the ICBI affirm the Historical-Grammatical method, the foundational goal of this is really to avoid liberal theology making a mish-mash of Scripture. Proper hermeneutics should allow us to get at the meaning of Scripture, and if Scripture is true and our interpretation is correct then contradictions will be avoided.
Let's say, as appears to be the case, that you are absolutely convinced that the Historical-Grammatical method necessitates your interpretation of the Genesis Creation as YEC. Yet, you are aware of an interpretation that fits external sources much better AND which many others who respect and even endorse the Historical-Grammatical believe is viable.
Doesn't this make you question that possibly you are wrongly using the hermeneutic, that you are possibly guilty of injecting a system of theology and Christian beliefs that you were taught that is leading you to error and facilitating an incorrect interpretation?
I'll here end with Geisler, an important member on the ICBI, who further comments:
- Further, this Affirmation recognizes that not all truth is in the Bible (though all that is affirmed in the Bible is true). God has revealed Himself in nature and history as well as in Scripture. How-ever, since God is the ultimate Author of all truth, there can be no contradiction between truths of Scripture and the true teachings of science and history.
Although only the Bible is the nonnative and infallible rule for doctrine and practice, nevertheless what one learns from sources out-side Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation of Scripture. For example, some have taught the world to be square because the Bible refers to "the four comers of the earth" (Isa. 11: 12). But scientific knowledge of the spherical nature of the globe leads to a correction of this faulty interpretation. Other clarifications of our understanding of the biblical text are possible through the study of the social sciences.