From Inspiration to Understanding. Edward W. H. Vick

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and then try to establish its factual accuracy. Or even, as one sometimes hears, ‘The factual claims of the Bible must be true, and therefore we can, in principle, show them to be true, as a necessary condition for accepting it as having authority.’ That is a most extreme position indeed!

      No one can say in advance that every claim the Bible makes is true. You cannot reasonably believe an historical claim, unless and until you have evidence to establish that claim. You may be pre- disposed to believe it. You may hope that it will prove to be true. But it would be unreasonable to say that it must be true. Historical judgments are not necessary. They are contingent. That means that you cannot say in advance of having considered the evidence that claims will be true, or that they must be true. You have to test the claims and find out whether they are. You have to check the evidence and decide whether the historical (or other factual) claim is probably true. We cannot say a priori, before examining the evidence what the outcome of the investigation will be. Whether you wish it to be true or are predisposed to believe it true is neither here nor there. You can only reasonably believe a factual claim for which there is evidence that makes it probable. You must examine the particular case and follow the rules of evidence. You may then be able to decide whether the claim, explicit or implied, is probably true or probably false. The evidence may lead you to conclude that it is highly probable that it is true, or false. The probability may be such that you have good reason for being certain that your judgment is correct.

      This is correct procedure in principle. That means that it applies in whatever context claims are made and so in considering the historical and other factual claims of the Bible. The Bible does not have a special status when it is a question of deciding whether its factual claims are true. It would be irrational to claim in advance of a reasonable consideration of the appropriate evidence that its claims must be believed. If that is accepted, and if a person says he is quite prepared to be irrational there can be no further discussion. For that person will believe what he wants and feel no obligation to give reasons for his belief. It is impossible to hold intelligent discourse with such a person.

One writer claims that the New Testament commands our unconditional obedience. He speaks of the ‘authoritative preaching and teaching of (the) apostles.’ Since Paul is an apostle his writing ‘therefore demands obedience.’45 But what does that mean? It just will not do to speak so vaguely about ‘the New Testament’ or ‘the Bible.’ Does the writer mean, ‘Broadly and vaguely, the New Testament commands our unconditional obedience,’ or does he mean that every command, exhortation or directive, wherever found and on whatever theme, commands our unconditional obedience? Speaking broadly and vaguely conveys little or no meaning. We cannot obey or believe broadly and vaguely. Our unconditional obedience is quite specific. Is every command or directive of an apostle’s teaching to be obeyed? Are women to remain silent in our churches?46 Are we to practice celibacy?47 Must we maintain rules and procedures regarding hygiene such as Jesus commended?48 Should one Christian never ever file a law suit against another?49 Is there to be no separation after marriage?50 And so on! Are Christians to take these demands as absolute and unconditional? The obvious fact is that they do not do so. So since they do not do so, that practice needs to be put into theory. They need to say how it is that they approach the Bible so as not to do what in many instances it says should be done. The words of the New Testament were written in particular contexts and addressed to quite specific situations. Those contexts and situations have passed and the advice and direction given to them may well be no longer relevant. However, there may be an important principle behind the particular directives. But that principle will have to be discerned. It will require a sympathetic interpretation of the text to show what that principle is. Does the Christian, if disagreeing when the interpretation is presented, reject the authority of the text? If you derive the principle from the specific instances dealt with in the text, is it the text or is it your interpretation which has authority?

      The Bible does not lack authority because it is not verse by verse ‘immediately employable.’ For example, How does one apply the principle of love to difficult and complex personal and social situations? Where there is disagreement about ethical questions, one can hardly settle the matter from the text of Scripture when parties appeal to the same text but draw different meanings from it, different directives for action.

The following warning is appropriate here. ‘Authority is often confused with immediate applicability. It is then thought that every word and command in Scripture is forthwith obligatory for faith and conduct . . . The Bible is not authoritative because it is verse by verse immediately employable.’51

      It is not an uncommon procedure to assert the authority of the Bible on inadequate grounds and then to demand unconditional belief or unconditional obedience. Take the following as examples of this logic:

‘The New Testament is clothed with his supreme authority and commands our unconditional obe-dience.’52

‘The most basic and fundamental of all claims made on behalf of the Bible, and that which it makes for itself, is that it is true. This means that whatever statements it makes on whatever subject are all true. The Bible is a book of truth not lies, of integrity not falsehood. The reason the Bible claims to be true is because what it contains comes to man from God. Holy and good men wrote the Bible, but what they wrote was not their own ideas or wisdom. They wrote what God gave them to write. What they committed to writing was the Word of God expressed in human language.’53

      We should now consider two questions. What is entailed in demanding belief and obedience in the name of an authoritative writing? Does the demand for obedience rest upon the demand for belief ?

      10 RECAPITULATORY STATEMENT

      1 Christians find themselves recognizing the authority of the Christian community with which they are connected.

      2 The Christian community appeals to the Bible, as authority. At the same time it presents its teachings for acceptance as authoritative for the member.

      3 By pronouncing that the Bible has authority, whether for doctrine, organisation, practice, the community is making a judgment about the Bible.

      4 The community demands that such judgments, usually indeed a whole series of judgments, often in great detail, about the Bible be endorsed by the members of the community.

      5 The believer’s acknowledgment means that he lets himself come under the influence of both the Bible and the ‘authority’ which interprets the Bible to him.

      6 It is then his responsibility to assure himself that he is doing so for the right reasons. If he gives the right reasons he may be reasonably sure that he has not misconstrued the Bible, that his attitude to it is reasonable.

      7 The authority of the Bible is not identical with its immediate applicability. The meaning of the biblical passages is arrived at through interpretation.

      26 C. Evans, op. cit., p. 24

      27 Reported in Eusebius, HE, VI, 25, 11-14 Cf. Stephenson, A New Eusebius, p. 223.

      28 Adam Fox, Meet the Greek Testament, pp. 16-17. ‘I am not sure if John in all the five cases where his name indicates an author is the same John, nor whether he is John the son of Zebedee one of the Twelve, nor another John, the aged divine of Ephesus, or a young disciple of the Lord outside the circle of the Twelve. I am not sure if Matthew whose name is connected with the first Gospel is the same as Levi, called from the receipt of custom to be one of the twelve (Mark 2:14). I do not know who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews or the Second Epistle of Peter. I do, however, know a great deal about Paul and Luke and I feel fairly certain that between them they wrote about half the New Testament.’

      СКАЧАТЬ