Moody is a big name in Evangelical circles. It has a long and
influential legacy. So what happened? Why is the school in trouble?
As the article makes clear, the answer to that question is
necessarily complicated and would require a great deal of investigation. If the
school collapses I'm sure someone will pursue the story.
At this point, viewing the question from a distance, I don't
find its decline to be that surprising.
Barring some kind of particularly egregious financial
mismanagement the reasons for decline are not too difficult to discern.
Moody joined the Evangelical wave that rose during the
post-war decades. It sought a voice in social affairs, a place at the table
located in the public square. For the many Fundamentalists who turned
Evangelical, or for the children of Fundamentalists that wished to hold on to
the faith but distance themselves from the separatist ethos of their parents,
Moody had an august pedigree and a solid reputation that extended beyond
American shores.
The article speaks of theologically liberal professors making
inroads, Scripture being questioned and faculty advocating social positions
outside the boundaries of the Christian Right.
This has been quite common in Evangelical schools. From Moody
and Wheaton to Houghton, BIOLA, Fuller and other institutions, the desire for
accreditation and respect has led to certain compromises with the secular
academy. To borrow from a chapter heading in Iain Murray's Evangelicalism
Divided there have been certain compromises made in the realm of intellectual respectability and Scripture.
It is inevitable that not only will the tenured faculty be
susceptible to cultural influence but unless a rigorous gate-keeping system is
erected, those with less than solid views of Scripture would creep in.
It is at this point that the Confessionalist will raise a
hand and make their case and perhaps it could be said they've exhibited some success
in this regard. They certainly have forced out academics that didn't toe the
line. Additionally as Confessionalists (as opposed to Evangelicals) they are
the possessors of an older heritage and have memories of 'losing' both
universities and seminaries to liberal influence.
As I question the whole model and impulse driving what
they're doing in the realm of academics I find it unnecessary to argue the
merits of their approach. I merely note it as a point of interest.
Regarding Moody, here is the dilemma.
If you're a conservative Evangelical or someone leaning
toward the Fundamentalist spectrum, why would you consider Moody? If they have
a reputation for being less than solid, why invest the time and money? Serious
students of that stripe are going to affiliate with institutions that will
strengthen already existing faith-structures and prepare them to function
within that limited ecclesiastical sphere.
For those more broad-minded, which in this case is not
necessarily a compliment, for those seeking academic challenge and/or seeking
credentials, why pick Moody? Why not go to Duke, Union, Yale or Princeton? If
you want your degree to grant you access to wider academic endeavour, Moody is
less than impressive.
Do you see my point? Once a school like Moody has abandoned
it historic position, why go to it? All that's left are the descendants of
alumni, locals, and a handful of Evangelicals that like the location, have a
favourite professor or something along those lines.
Moody is a parable. For decades Evangelicals have sought
respect and influence through various compromises with the world. They hoped to
integrate into the larger academic world, get quoted in journals, have their
works appear in footnotes, receive invitations to conferences and to have their
movement included in scholastic surveys of the larger field.
They have failed and miserably at that. Not a few within these
circles will admit this. They are ignored and no one cares about them. All of
their efforts (in this regard) have amounted to nothing. In addition they have
poisoned and corrupted the minds of younger generations, all but ensuring they
will not remain within their fold. They have sowed the seeds for their own
destruction.
Unwilling to be fools for Christ's sake, to scorn what the
world offers, they have tried to straddle two realms at once, to have their
cake and eat it too. They helped to destroy Fundamentalism and sought a 'wiser'
strategy to combat liberalism and secularism. They've lost this battle too and
it won't be long before they've also lost the Right-wing political posture they
hold so dear.
The question is, will the upcoming generation learn the
lessons?
Probably not. Most won't bother to look back.
This is a post in response to the Chicago Statement post over on the other blog:
ReplyDeleteI understand and appreciate your harshness about historical criticism and handing over the Bible to the academy. But I don't understand the blanket appeal to supernatural authority and being fools for Christ. I'm not saying that such is not true, but it seems to shortcircuit legitimate questions and inquiries being made into the texts, as such. This is where I think it's fair to appreciate a distinction drawn between appreciating the texts as text, Human produced in a social context, and evaluating them as Scripture. This is not to bifurcate the facts, nor have the latter depend upon the former.
Recently, Richard Bauckham has carpet bombed New Testament studies with his complete deconstruction of form-criticism and his thesis that the New Testament is, as it says, composed of witnesses to Jesus as the Christ. He's recovered that the historical phenomena around the dispersal of the texts makes sense of its elevation to Scripture: these were written by apostles and those who knew them. However, even if apostles wrote texts, that doesn't mean anything without the theological claim that God speaks, and has delivered over Scripture to His people to make His will known. But these are two different enterprises, and while Christians should not profane the texts, they appeared and were recognized in a historical context. It's one thing to validate how the texts attest to their origin (e.g. Luke says he interviewed people; John says he was there from the beginning etc.), and another thing to make a higher, absolute, claim (i.e. these texts were created through the work of the Spirit, perfectly revealing the perfect Word of God, so as to perfect His people).
cont.
I think the major problem in the Chicago Statement is that the two claims get confused, due to a latent historicism vogue among even conservative biblical scholars. Inerrancy treats the autograph as almost in terms of a fetish or totem, as if God's power was restrained to the creation of some glowing object. Clearly, such a view is a really diminished view of the Spirit's work among the elect and gathering up all things, making Christ known.
DeleteBut I'm not always sure of how you reckon some of your sentiments with providence. Could not new texts be, themselves, a form of providential guidance? Not as if they introduce new doctrines, but clear up ambiguities in older texts? I know you're nowhere close to a KJV-Onlyist, but you have sympathy for their adherence to the Textus Receptus. But here I'm thinking of the use of the Apocrypha; Christians used these books, and were not always clear on whether such were apart of the canon or not. It wasn't until the Reformation when they were (re)moved, either to the back of the Bible or out of it altogether. But such a shift should be reckoned providentially. Rome's full-throated defense of them is suspect, to me, that they were, in fact, mistaken, but that would mean many Christians did not know such. One can read an Origen or Irenaeus quote Wisdom from time to time, as well as Athanasius and Augustine. So, I'm in full agreement that the Apostles' taught the full revelation of God, and that there was nothing more to add to their teaching, as it revealed God's long awaited Messiah. But that doesn't mean there isn't providential work of clearing up that meaning, or, for whatever reason, the Spirit maintaining ambiguity and drawing Christians to work with the texts, and be shaped in the process. I don't have a problem with this ongoing providential conformity and its manifestation in, say, finding different versions of the text. I've not seen anything found that has substantively altered any serious doctrine on its own weight.
I guess, I'm concerned that the Chicago Statement crowd could point to the claim that the autographs were fully inerrant and inspired by God (some even following B.B. Warfield and claiming a trance-like autodidact process of composition) and say, look at us, no secular would believe such a thing, we're fools for Christ. You'd rightly point out their errors. But what if someone cut an even more radical posture to you, say a Hutchinsonian redivivus, and said that the original Hebrew, without the vowel points, is the truly inspired and divine language, and the full next can only be understood in that language. They could outflank you with an even more supernaturalist appeal to language-mysticism and being even more of a fool for Christ (the original Hutchinson even wrote against Newton, saying that angels, not gravity, kept things down). The charges don't necessarily stick, the Scripture and the theology of the Gospel must reprove them.
I think the Chicago Statement needs criticism a long the lines you provide, but I don't think its substantive enough to cut them off at the pass.
I wasn't aware of the 'bombing' of form criticism. Any such attack/deconstruction is good news... if it bears any fruit. I reckon the collapse of Enlightenment optimism to always be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteNo one is denying the human element...well, maybe some almost do. But, the 'scholarship' in general that I've been criticising in several recent posts treats the human element as something you can approach divorced from the Divine... that's where it becomes a problem. Like the Incarnation, if I can draw the analogy it's a Divine-human operation and one that cannot be parsed. To put the human aspect under the microscope gets one into trouble so to speak. Ultimately the Divine authority also comes under attack.
The issue is authority and specifically the authority of the NT.
The OT order was of a slightly different nature and while the OT canon certainly is relevant, pertinent and related it's authority for the Church is rooted in the NT's reading of it. The writings of the Apostles are absolutely authoritative. When you read the NT with this in mind, it's surprising how often it pops up. It's all rooted in Christ and his appointment of the Apostles. This is an article of faith, not something subject to scientific examinations regarding various (frankly subjective) criteria regarding formulation, dating, style, manuscript provenance etc....
To me, and I realise not every reader is going to be on the same page, this is the sum and substance of the issue. And thus once grasped, I maintain that the other text-criticism approaches are not only flawed scientifically they are by their very nature anti-New Testament.
ReplyDeleteThen when one starts to dig into the whole nature of textual criticism and even a great deal of ancient history it's startling to discover just how shaky the ground is.
As far as the Apocrypha goes, I think it's actually quite useful in elucidation but it's not authoritative. Clearly the Early Church respected the books and some of the other non-traditional Apocryphal works like Enoch were also highly regarded. I think these books have been neglected and I think it's a mistake. But again, they're read in light of the New Testament. I don't think they should be considered part of the OT and perhaps its best to bind them separately but I don't, like many Protestants just reckon them to be worthless. It's an interesting topic and a lot of other issues come up with regard to those books.
You seem to be suggesting a fluid canon or at least the possibility of one. If it could change in the 16th century, could it change again? What about the text? If the Critical Text is valid, then should we discard not only the controversial passages, but the host of other phrases and clauses that they would eliminate? How can such a text be authoritative, especially as now they're suggesting via computer modelling new phrases that actually have no textual basis? Where does it end? Rome could hypothetically embrace such views. In a way it doesn't really matter because the authority lies with the Magisterium.
But if the Magisterium is to be rejected, and Sola Scriptura is gone, what then? We're back to Scripture, Reason and Tradition... the Anglican-Wesleyan formula. And I suppose that's what many people believe is the only viable option. I think the triad is deceptive. Reason (real, imagined or idealised) is going to win every time. The other two components are restraints at best. If I reached that point I would either convert to Orthodoxy or more likely cease to be a Christian.
I know the argument that says no critical doctrine is affected by the variant readings, reconstructions and eliminations. And yet I just don't agree. I would argue that every doctrine is affected. No apostolic authority, no Bible. (No, I wasn't thinking of No Bishop, No King. I only thought of that when I was re-reading my note) (smile)
As far as the Hebrew and the debates over vowel points or for that matter even the authentic Hebrew text... Masoretic, LXX or something else.
This may sound strange considering my views of the NT but at this point... post-Calvary, post-Acts 2.... it doesn't really matter.
What I was presenting in the comment was more of a methodological amendment to what you were saying. Of course we, as Christians, accept the infallible authority of Apostolic Tradition, meaning the New Testament. But, as scholars like Bauckham seek to unveil, what did this process actually look like for people living in the first century? How were apostles reckoned as such, how were texts created and received? I'm not trying to say the theological is divorced from the human element here, but that we should retrace our steps so we don't erase the human element in the quest to protect the divine element. The ultimate claim, that Jesus is the Christ, and all that entails, is only accessible by faith, but we have to get there to let the claim do its work. Good scholarship, as I see it, is like weaving your way through Jerusalem, out the gate, and up to where Christ is crucified. But from there, that's where you confess faith or harden your heart. That's the theological, divine, element of reckoning Scripture.
ReplyDeleteMy only point here in bringing up Hutchinsonians is to say that merely claiming our opponents are worldling, and we adhere to the supernatural reality-bending truth, is not enough. The criticism might stick in some regards, but one can always be outflanked in terms of being a "fool for Christ". Chicago Statement people would claim the same for themselves, even if it turns out not to be the case (as all Evangelical power-mongering tends to be). I want a solider base of criticism for such a weak and reduced view of providence (the Chicago Statement is Deism plus some kind of witchcraft).
I'm not saying there's a fluid canon. But I don't understand how you're using sola scriptura. Even with apostolic authority girding the NT, and thus the OT, it's still all Greek and someone had to translate it for me so I could read it. And, as you know, translators and scholars have manipulated the text for the purposes of steering readers towards certain doctrines (Papists translating repentance as penance, Luther inserting 'alone', KJV decision to change Tyndale's Congregation back into Church, etc.) And, despite meddling, the Spirit guides the reception of Scripture in the Church in such a way that the truth remains despite misunderstandings. All of these things have only spurred people on into searching Scripture for themselves, and rooting out false doctrine. That's what I see the Critical Text, and other things, doing. It's not changing doctrine (contrary to some designs), but providing a context to search Scripture, and find the truth. You seem to imply that if there is even the slightest variation in the text, or not one absolute, providentially secured, version, than all knowledge, and apostolic authority, is out the window. The Textus Receptus was not the same version of Greek scripture that was translated into, say, Augustine's latin, from which he read. You seem to depend on a similar, materialist, understanding of the text that got the Fundamentalist trapped in the liberal quagmire. But I'm thinking I just don't understand what you're saying.
I'm arguing for sola scriptura and the authoritative need for apostolic authority, Christ's authoritative stamp for the hermeneutical governing power of the NT. I've learned to treasure these convictions from your fierce defenses of them, but I'm at a loss at the inner workings of your position.
Well at the very least it would seem you have an evolutionary view of the text and that would imply the same with regard to the canon. Again I say it would seem... that's the message I'm getting.
DeleteAll the Critical Text arguments are predicated on the idea of the Lucian Recension. With this theory comes the notion (as Metzger elaborated it) that the original text was lost/corrupted and it's up to Textual Criticism to restore it. The position argues the Church essentially had the wrong text from the 4th to the 19th centuries. And even then, the 19th century marked not a recovery but the beginning of a process of restoration... a process that will never end.
I would argue the Lucian Recension is myth. It's based on bad methods and rooted in bad theological assumptions.
Paul taught that knowledge of God is revealed in a mystery and that we must compare the spiritual with the spiritual. Man's methods and wisdom cannot discern the 'true' text anymore than they can hope to understand it. This is true in general philosophical terms let alone when it comes to pseudo-scientific theories of unbelievers regarding what they believe to be essentially a work of man. None of the framers of these theories really believed it is a supernatural document.
The Scriptures, the canon, the notions of inspiration and preservation. These are all faith in Christ issues. Warfield et al. abdicated the historical Protestant position and have settled for a via media... but one that accepts the deeply flawed extra- and anti- Biblical theories of 'scholars' that patently rejected much if not most of the Bible's supernaturalism and certainly the foundations of the faith. The pro-Critical Text position is a theologically liberal one. That said, there are many good Christian men who hold it but on this point I think they're gravely mistaken.
I'm not denying there are lots of challenges when it comes to translations and there are a few texts that are difficult and controversial.
DeleteI think some maybe have erred in placing too much on the TR. The TR is but a subset of the larger body of texts. I'm probably more inclined to argue for a Majority Byzantine Text. This of course differs from what some understand as the Majority Text. Under their models all the Byzantine texts count for one vote.... again due to the Lucian Recension theory.
While I don't fully embrace some of the 'TR is the Text' views, the truth is the Majority Byzantine that I'm speaking of would be an almost exact match with the TR. Some would say the TR essentially represents what I'm suggesting. There's always the variants with regarding to spelling, word order, a missing word or article, numbers things like that. But that kind of lower criticism is very different than the Higher Critical views and despite claims to the contrary the Lucian Recension/Critical Text view as well as some of the canons of Modern Criticism are all rooted in liberal assumptions... and yet, the vast majority of Evangelicals and Confessionalists have embraced them.
The oldest text is the best? Oh, why is that? Besides how do you really know the Critical Text is older? Some argue the Western text older. For that matter the whole question of text-types itself can be questioned. If that theory is jettisoned then where does that leave the whole Wescott-Hort narrative? The shorter reading is better and older? Oh? That could be, but to use that kind of Ockham's Razor approach to the text might exhibit a type of logic but it doesn't mean it's right.
I realise you don't quite agree but maybe you can see from my standpoint this is HUGE. These guys have sold the farm. They can argue all day long about gay marriage and who's a true Calvinist. Who cares? In a couple of generations they won't have a Bible anymore.
I found a copy of Van Bruggen's most excellent The Ancient Text of the NT in pdf format. The link is here if anyone is interested:
http://www.cspmt.org/pdf/resources/The%20Ancient%20Text%20of%20the%20NT%20-%20Van%20Bruggen.pdf
I think it would be helpful to posit a distinction, not a difference or opposition, between the term 'Scripture' and the term 'text'. Scripture is a theological term, a binding over a series of texts that takes them for God's very word and accepts them as such. A text is more of a physical, material, term referring to a specific written document. Thus, when I'm holding my Bible in my hand it is a series of translated texts from such and such source(s) (I like NKJV, thank you very much) and it is, at the same time, Scripture, full stop. I can read Scripture even if I don't know Greek or Hebrew. There's no diminishing returns or some such effect.
DeleteThe problem is that the Chicago Statement people and Metzger, along with a whole host of higher criticism people, have confused the two. They think, if we can find the 'original', then we have the purest form of Scripture, and such can be done through scholarly method. But I'm saying what you're saying: it not only claims that no one really had God's word for 1600 years, but it then moves ultimate authority into a hierarchy of scholars. But while I'm against such claims, I'm trying to interact with what has been accomplished. Are people reading the ESV not reading Scripture, just because it's a different variation on the text? Again, translations have always had theological intent in their baggage train, but God's Word shines out nonetheless.
I don't have an evolutionary view of the text or Scripture. Texts don't change, and neither does Scripture even though there is a variety of versions of particular texts. All I'm doing is being serious about how language works. I don't care what the Critical Text people intend or believe, I'm looking at the facts of that work within a larger purview of providence. Why did God allow this epistemic ambiguity? What purposes does it serve His will? These are things I'm trying to gesture towards.
The broad sweep of the comments is thus: you're attacking the theology and philosophy behind higher criticism, I'm wanting to add an amendment on what it might all mean. I don't think it's possible people "won't have a Bible anymore" in the way you're talking about it. If there's disagreement, it's about the level of fear. The Waldensians had only a portion of the NT and the Psalms, and they were much more in-tune with Scripture than some of the Reformation's Judaizers. Even an incomplete Bible gave them access to the Scriptures, an authority they stood upon. And that's an extreme example.
Yes, I'm your commentboard agitator :) . I'll read the PDF and keep thinking about all of this.
I appreciate the distinction. What we're really talking about is... What is the Bible? There's a host of ideas associated with the notion of Holy Writings... and that includes the texts. Of course we have to be careful not to divorce content/meaning from the words.
DeleteThat said, it does get fuzzy. I think the ESV is by all estimations a good translation but based on a corrupted text. Is it the Bible? Yes, but in somewhat corrupted form. Is that corruption to the point that the message is destroyed? No, by no means. But, the principles behind it, plant seeds of corruption, seeds that will not remain dormant... that's why I'm concerned. I'm not a KJV/Ruckmanite that will walk out of a church if they're using the ESV but I have no interest in using it and if the opportunity presents itself I'll explain why. Now at one point a couple of years ago I was interacting with a local Baptist pastor who embraced the critical text and was quite hostile to the TR-preservationist position. He was teaching during church that the Pericope Adulterae was not Scripture... and generating some concern and confusion. When it came up during conversations with other church members (some of which happen to be family members) I was not the least bit hesitant to explain the issue and explain why their pastor was wrong.
Yes, the Waldensians had a less than pure Bible. They did the best with what they had... vernacular translations of the Vulgate.
To put it another way.... I'm glad people are reading the ESV or even the NIV (I'm holding my nose) as opposed to nothing at all.... but, there are issues of concern that require the warning to be sounded. There's the folks in the pew (so to speak) but then there's these evangelical 'leaders' that sign statements, put out study Bibles and the like. They're in a different category.
We're somewhat talking past each other at this point. Having read the PDF and being a relative novice with biblical criticism, all of what you say seems pretty much right. But I think these questions require us to think more critically about God's providence and the role of Scripture within God's Church, spread out among diverse churches. And in doing so, we provide a better counter-point to people following the guild hierarchy.
DeleteTo elaborate one last time: the problem is primarily that text and Scripture become confused categories for them. So, take for example the claim, extrapolated from fragments of Papias, that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew or in Aramaic, and it was quickly translated into Greek. Such is the historical origin of the text and such might be true. But that does not impact the fact that the Matthew we have is not Scripture. If one day some archaeologist found a copy of Matthew in Aramaic, the problem with our opponents is that they would think, "aha, we now have found true Scripture", as if what the Church previously had was somehow defective. Now, and here's where I get into the question of providence, I'd ask: why did God permit this text to be found in the time it has been? What questions should the discovery force us to confront?
In a similar way, I think about the Septuagint and copies of Scripture in Hebrew as complementary. They overlap, where the text in Greek would elucidate the Hebrew and vice versa (e.g. In the Hebrew mss. Exodus refers to the "sea of reeds", whereas the Septuagint refers to the "Red Sea", and recent thinking has posited that the two are not contradictory or opposed, but refer to the same thing). It doesn't call the text we have into question, not as a text and not as Scripture, but forces us to be refined.
The example about the Pericope Adulterae is sad; what a foolish pastor.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your (Proto's) blogs for a while (I've also taken a couple brief looks at Cal's but not much), but this is my first comment. So let me just start off with a little thank you for your blogs, which have been an excellent resource for me.
This conversation between you and Cal as well as the original post Cal mentioned remind me of a conversation I recently had with someone (who's either a Presbyterian or an Anglican, can't remember which). My argument (which seems to be in line with what Cal is saying) was that a person who is uneducated in theology, philosophy, and history, but who has the guidance of the Holy Spirit and access to a Bible in his own language, is equally capable of correctly understanding scripture as a person an education philosophy, the history of the church, and theology throughout history, with access to the original text and the ability to read it. His argument is that there is certain knowledge not contained in scripture that is nonetheless essential to understanding it.
Ultimately he seemed to compromise between an appeal to the Magisterium and what you refer to as the Anglican/Wesleyan formula. That in the end we are dependent on magisterial authority, as well as reason and tradition, to correctly interpret scripture.
To me, this is hollow and will never really satisfy. While it is nice to have the support of commentaries, histories, Greek and Hebrew texts, etc., if all these things were blotted out today and only modern translations survived, I believe that nothing essential would be lost. Although these translations certainly contain errors in translation, as well as deliberate attempts to alter the text, and there is always the inherent problem of accurately conveying meaning between widely differing grammatical and semantic systems, we can trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us in the interpretation whatever version of scripture is left to us.
After all, without the mind of Christ which believers possess through the Holy Spirit, surely it wouldn't matter how accurately the scripture was translated or whether or not it was authoritative. As fallen men, no amount of insight from reason or tradition or historical attestation would be adequate to understand the scripture. And once we rely on the Holy Spirit as the ultimate assurance that we can understand God's Word, how can we say that the Holy Spirit is not adequate? Obviously there are concerns about the manipulation of the text but I think we can rely on spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit, with diligent reading of scripture, to inform us when deliberately misleading changes have been made.
I might not be explaining myself very well. I could also be wrong, in a lot of ways, I am still being weaned off milk-doctrine after being in water-down churches for too long.
Anyway, thanks again for your blog, your political and theological commentary has been very educational.
Proto and I aren't disagreeing with the need for the Spirit's guidance, but I'm trying to hammer out what this looks like in tangible terms. So, all three of us are in broad agreement there.
DeleteMy only major qualification of what you say is the following: what does the gifts and guidance of the Holy Spirit actually look like when reading and interpreting Scripture? The idea of the individual reading Scripture for himself is an abstraction for the sake of argument. No one ever reads Scripture by himself, he always has other voices with him guiding him. This fact might come from the translation itself, or the church you're a part of who is teaching from Scripture, or the friends/family around you in which you became a Christian and so on. The claim of the Spirit's guidance is through all of this, that it's a process of engagement with the Scripture and being purified in the struggle with it. All of the commentaries, translation, interpretations, even false doctrine and heresies, are all under the providential manifestation of the truth.
So, when I think of the Spirit's guidance, I think of Phillip being guided to the Ethiopian eunuch who couldn't understand Isaiah. I think this passage in Acts teaches us two things. 1) The Apostolic authority for interpreting Scripture is contained in the NT being the authoritative hermeneutic for the OT. 2) The Spirit leading us into all truth, and teaching us, occurs not in some sort of mystical trance, but in the collective life of God's elect and through relationships with other creatures, whether other people, books, conversation, etc.
I don't think we can read Scripture without tradition, but I don't mean that in an authoritative way. I just mean that we will have some received knowledge of what such-and-such means from some past engagement with, or imposition on, the Scripture. But from all those jagged fragments, the Spirit makes the truth known, to anyone or anywhere. Certainly Afro-American slaves received the faith through the revivalist evangelicalism of both their masters and circuit preachers. But as they began to handle the Scripture, they began to see not a life of mind-numbing eternal bondage, but a liberation, for they were new creation in Christ, and God delivered the oppressed. But the way they go there was through the means given, and the Spirit can draw straight lines with crooked sticks, and that such was not only an accident, but the very means to showcase God's glory.
cal
As a recent example: I find that a lot of contemporary, academic, theology about the trinity is terrible. All such doctrine has floated off the very text of Scripture and becomes self-perpetuating for the purposes of some systematic commitment, philosophical position, or even just rank politics. I've profited much from recent scholarly reconstructions of the first few centuries, mostly because many of those who composed Nicaean trinitarian orthodoxy were much closer to the text. By reading them more closely (especially Gregory Nazianzus), it has freed up my mind to more properly engage with Scripture on the matter, and listen more attentively, getting out of the mud of speculative commitments. I see things like that as the Spirit's providential guidance, at least as one shape of it.
DeleteThanks for writing Jordan and as always I appreciate Cal's comments even when we end up locking horns a bit. (smile)
DeleteI understand what you're saying and yet I think Cal raises some valid points as well.
There is something to the idea as I expressed in my comment... this is ultimately all about faith.
Of course we have to determine what do the Scriptures say about themselves?
The idea that since it's the Holy Spirit that illuminates us it therefore doesn't matter if there are minor modifications to the text is not implausible. It can be held with integrity and without compromising the substance of the Gospel.
But, does that view reflect the nature of Apostolic authority as represented in the text itself? I would argue no, it doesn't. I would also argue such a view introduces a host of problems with the other issues I keep harping about. I would also add that one's understanding of canon comes into play here. Not just the simple definition and delineation of canon but the concept itself. I cannot fully endorse everything Kline says in The Structure of Biblical Authority but he raises some really important points in terms of what canon is.... a covenant, a temple blueprint etc....
I think we might all be approaching these issues from a slightly different vantage point. I probably seem semi-hysterical and not a little fanatical about this issue. Maybe so, but it also could be that I've got a different set of glasses on, if you know what I mean?
I hope to hear more from you. I appreciate the input. Finally I apologise. This is wierd, we're commenting on an article from the sister website. Why aren't we commenting there? That's my older blog and it just gets bombarded by spam. That and some other comment problems make me nuts so I just shut the feature off. But certain website regulars (ahem) want to comment on some of those pieces and so usually they just jump in on whatever recent article is up on the Underground site and we carry on. What a mess eh? But it seems to work. (smile)
Great conversation. Some thoughts:
ReplyDeleteCould the 'pattern of sound words' suggested by Paul imply flexibility as to how the apostolic message was conveyed (cf. 2 Thess 2:15)? This could be transferred to an acceptance of MSS differences that don't change the overall message of the canon of Scripture, perhaps with the RT/Byzantine as a 'control' for the providentially preserved message, affecting what changes we would or wouldn't accept from the Critical Text.
As for the Apocrypha, perhaps it could be said that, since it wasn't completely accepted by God's Old Covenant people by the time of the New Covenant, it wasn't and isn't essential or God would have got everyone to accept it by that point.
Interesting take on 'pattern'... traditions in AV.... precepts/laws in Strong's.
ReplyDeleteThe 'form' of sound words in 2Tim1.13 could also be enlisted in reference to this point, though the 2Tim passage is often used as an apologia for systematics. I'm not sure how helpful either references are. Of course the 2 Thes. reference is also used (by some) to argue for an oral tradition.
Right, the Apocrypha while used by the Jews and the Early Church shouldn't be reckoned as Scripture. Some of the Early Church fathers seemed to treat parts of it as such but I think they were wrong to do so. It isn't essential but helpful, like Josephus but in some cases more so.