The text-only issue.
In my parts there's a little diagram that gets pulled out from time to time that is known as the Theological Quadrilateral. It looks something like this:
| Scripture | Reason |
| Experience | Tradition |
The diagram is used to illustrate the four areas from which knowledge of God comes. In practice, everyone holds to a particular hierarchy, that is, an order in which these are to be believed if they were ever to contradict one another.
Generally speaking, a Catholic Christian would put Tradition at the top of the hierarchy because the Catholic church teaches that the church determines what the Scriptures mean, rather than the individual Christian. A Christian from the “liberal” camp would put reason at the top, preferring to find some other explanation for miracles or Jesus' resurrection than is given in Scripture. A Charismatic or Pentecostal Christian places highest trust in his/her experience of God and will refuse to believe that the Scriptures could say anything contrary to their interpretation of the experience.
Of course, you know what I'm going to say about evangelicals, but it must be stressed that the other groups I've mentioned do, for the most part, believe in the authority of Scripture. But while they believe it to be true (or, at the very least “beneficial”) they use one of the other quadrants as an interpretative principle: the Scriptures explain how I feel; the meaning is explained by the church; the meaning must be something that seems reasonable to me in the 21st Century.
What is your principle?
If you think about yourself you will realise that it's almost impossible to separate them out. You experience the Scriptures as you read them, you grow up with traditional explanations of them, and you use your reason to fit what you hear and read into a comprehensive worldview. You will realise that tradition is a very useful shortcut to understanding—it is wise to listen to older Christians, even Christians who have been dead for a thousand years, as you piece together your knowledge of God.
It is proper to use their traditions of thought and practice, your reason, and your experience but when there is a conflict, who will you trust? When your reason tells you one thing and the Scriptures another what decision will you make? Will you force the Scriptures that you want to believe into a meaning that seems reasonable? Will you let the Scriptures deny what you think you have learnt through the intense feelings you have experienced?
It is not easy to trust the Scriptures in this way. The hierarchy that comes naturally to us is experience first, reason second, tradition third and 2000-year-old, translated text written to somebody else last of all.
For the purposes of this issue we will leave aside experience and tradition and think about some practical ways to keep reason in its place.
Graeme Goldsworthy's influential books on biblical theology (Gospel and Kingdom, According to Plan, etc.) have taught us to ask first what the whole bible says, then what the book says, then what the chapter says, and finally the verse. This is an application of our reason that is informed by the Scripture itself.
The more we understand about the context of a passage, the more control we give to the text and the less we are able come up with explanations that seem reasonable to us but are not argued by the author. Without context we will easily be able to fit the smaller the unit of meaning (a verse, a phrase) into some theory that we already have.
An example of this may be the stories in Acts about the way in which different people groups became Christians. If we only read Acts 8 we might think that people become Christians by believing first, then, at a later date, having hands placed on them and receiving the Holy Spirit. But when we read the whole book of Acts we find that the circumstances of conversion are different every time, and that there is a structure to the book that is defined in Acts 1:8—the gospel is going out to the whole earth, starting in Jerusalem, then to all Judea, Samaria and finally the ends of the earth. We find that Acts 8 is the point at which the gospel reaches Samaria and should not necessarily be treated as normative.
Of course, it is possible to build a biblical theology or have an understanding of a particular book that is incorrect. The serious student of the Scriptures, however, will always be willing to have his/her “context concepts” challenged and refined. We must let the Scriptures build the context and then define the smaller parts by that context. In this way we will leave less and less room for our own speculations and be seeking to understand the author's logic.
As we've discussed earlier, contradiction is where the theological quadrilateral comes into play and we prefer that reason come out on top. We have a natural aversion to contradiction, and we will put a lot of mental effort into resolving conflict. This is an appropriate response and we shouldn't expect our reading of the scriptures to frustrate it; that is, we should not expect contradiction or suspend the law of non-contradiction when we read the Scriptures.
So what do we do when we come across something that does appear contradictory?
Firstly, we assume that the problem is with us, rather than with the text. Reason is only as useful as the information you have: perceived contradiction may only be a sign that you don't have all the facts. It may be that you need to take more time to discover more about the problem; it may be that you will never have all the facts and must humbly believe two things that appear to you to be contradictory. To do this is not the leap of faith it appears to be: it should be obvious that God will have more information and greater wisdom than we do. To admit this is to admit that God is God and we are not. This is unacceptable to the sceptical non-believer but that is because they do not believe in God and will not trust him.
Secondly, we need to seek to understand the nature of the text. Many of the “contradictions” that sceptics point out to the Christian result from a failure to understand the kind of writing that they are dealing with. In the four gospels for example, we see the same stories recorded in different orders. We might conclude at first that they were just making it up as they went along. But when you see the points that the authors are making by placing the stories in a particular order you realize that the chronological order in which the events occurred is not necessarily the important thing: the writers are teaching you by the very sequence in which they place the stories.
Christians are contra mundum: against the world. We believe in a God with absolute moral standards while our cultures change their standards overnight. We believe in a God who has once for all revealed the truth about himself through his Son, the testimony to whom rests in an unchanging document; our cultures want to see God now and reject any pre-scientific “knowledge”.
Because our world has rejected God in these ways, we should not expect the teachings of the Scriptures to be acceptable to our culture. Do not be surprised if the Scriptures do not teach that men and women are exactly alike, or that humans are not absolutely free to be whoever they want to be. If we reason away the things that we find unacceptable we are arrogantly asserting that we know better than God and are disobeying him.
Rule 1: Work hard at understanding the author's logic, and the logic of the whole Bible. An informed Biblical theology will leave less room for your own speculation.
Rule 2: When you perceive contradiction, assume that the problem is with you rather than with the text. Try to gather all the facts and accept that they may not all be available to you.
Rule 3: Don't expect to like what you hear or expect that your culture will appreciate it either.
All I've really said is “Trust God”.While we make use of our experience, our traditions, and our reason, we trust the text only. God is reliable; his words are reliable. Why trust anything less?
Ben enjoyed geometry above all other fields of mathematics at school. He recommends that you read Fundamentalism and the Word of God by J.I. Packer if you want to increase your trust in the Scriptures.
Comments
Hi Ben,
A few points/questions.
“A Charismatic or Pentecostal Christian places highest trust in his/her experience of God and will refuse to believe that the Scriptures could say anything contrary to their interpretation of the experience.”
I’m not sure you can state that all Charismatic or Pentecostal Christians would refuse to belive the Scriptures if they contridicted their experience of God. How was this relationship determined?
“Of course, you know what I’m going to say about evangelicals”
By this statement I can only assume you mean’t they place their trust in the 4th box which wasn’t mentioned in your previous statements. That being, they place their trust in Scripture. Or did you mean something else?
What about the spiritual aspect of Christianity, I don’t think you addressed that as well as you could have. The diagram barly addresses one of the most important concerns to most Christians, the spiritual experience - Prayer, faith, hope and the feeling that we are not just computers blindly following rules but having a definite spiritual side.
Is Christianity an Intellictual persuit, or an application of the word of God to human existance?
do you belive that people can perform healings in todays world as back then? St Andrew’s performs healing services.
“It may be that you need to take more time to discover more about the problem; it may be that you will never have all the facts and must humbly believe two things that appear to you to be contradictory. To do this is not the leap of faith it appears to be: it should be obvious that God will have more information and greater wisdom than we do. To admit this is to admit that God is God and we are not. This is unacceptable to the sceptical non-believer but that is because they do not believe in God and will not trust him.”
It’s perfectly valid to question Gods word, even in the face of contradiction. For example, it was right for Lot to question God when Sodom was to be destroyed. Genesis 18, Lot questions Gods reasoning as to the destruction of Sodom.
If Lot belives in God and trust him, why doesn’t he blindly follow God? He reasons. Is reason a sin? No, I belive God wanted Lot to protest and he showed spiritual maturity in doing so. You are suggesting that it is acceptable to belive two things that are in appearance, contradictory, on the basis of trusting God.
Would it not be possiable for the contradiction to exist? Maybe the contradiction exists in order to cause us to think and reason about the issue, maybe that is God purpose. So it is possiable to belive that a contradiction can have existance in order to cause something good.
Best Regards,
Phil
phil on 13 January, 2003 12:24 AM