tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post112656602783763822..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: The authority of the BibleBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1135014859123759782005-12-19T12:54:00.000-05:002005-12-19T12:54:00.000-05:00Interestingly, Byron, your first question comes cl...Interestingly, Byron, your first question comes close to Luther's position. Luther considered preaching to be the fundamental form of the (verbal) Word; he considered the Bible to be a (necessary) stopgap lest preaching misfire. Above all, he insisted that God's Word cannot be confined to a book.<BR/><BR/>I myself would argue not only that the spoken word must be tested against the written word, but also that the written word must be tested in the "crucible" of the gospel. In any case, the Bible does not come to us "neat", it is always mediated - and therein lies the question not only of hermeneutics but of the whole theological enterprise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1127185344890837982005-09-19T23:02:00.000-04:002005-09-19T23:02:00.000-04:00Just curious, Ben: does this mean that a sermon (o...Just curious, Ben: does this mean that a sermon (or blog for that matter) is as authoritative as the Bible insofar as it conforms/confirms/communicates the biblical message?<BR/><BR/>Also interested to hear what you think about eddie's question (does the message = the gospel of Jesus or does it = the entire sweep of biblical salvation history?). Thanks for all your work - always stimulating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1127121399760744712005-09-19T05:16:00.000-04:002005-09-19T05:16:00.000-04:00Hi Ben,About time I posted on your blog about your...Hi Ben,<BR/>About time I posted on your blog about your scripture musings!<BR/>Recently, Tom Wright has argued that the authority of scripture is simply this: the authority of God. Nothing new there perhaps, but how he defines the authority of God in this respect is thought-provoking: The authority of scripture, which is God's authority exercising through scripture, is 'the sovereign rule of God sweeping through creation to judge and heal. It is the powerful love of God in Jesus Christ, putting sin to death and launching new creation. It is the fresh, bracing and energizing wind of the Spirit' (<I>Scripture and the Authority of God</I>, 24).<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/>ChrisChris Tillinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03153087287030167791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1126797082470097582005-09-15T11:11:00.000-04:002005-09-15T11:11:00.000-04:00Ben: I don't regard the word "inspiration" to have...Ben: I don't regard the word "inspiration" to have a different meaning in the context of the Christian Faith then it does in the rest of life. Consequently, I doubt that my view would be entirely acceptable to a Tridentine view. But, I do have a high view of tradition, particularly of those decisions made before the formal schism. I believe that inspiration is active and ongoing but what separates the biblical text from say a classical piece by Bach or Mozart is that the former has received the assent of the historical church and become authoritative through deliberation. This process was inspired; God driven. Does that clarify my meaning?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1126738066219101092005-09-14T18:47:00.000-04:002005-09-14T18:47:00.000-04:00Hi John -- thanks for your thoughtful comment. You...Hi John -- thanks for your thoughtful comment. You ask what is wrong with saying "that the Bible is important because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit". <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with saying this, as long as we rightly understand what "inspired by the Holy Spirit" means, and as long as we're not just <I>starting</I> with a preconceived concept of "formal inspiration". I think that "inspiration" should be understood materially rather than formally -- it's a term that describes the Bible qua Word, not the Bible qua text.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1126681093860227232005-09-14T02:58:00.000-04:002005-09-14T02:58:00.000-04:00I find this post rather weak, as a matter of fact....I find this post rather weak, as a matter of fact. It's not at all obvious to me that verbal inspiration is incompatible with being culturally conditioned. <BR/><BR/>And you've only <I>stated</I> that the idea of authority through inspiration is theologically flawed. The fact that the important thing about the Bible is what it says doesn't consititute a reason.<BR/><BR/>And what precisely is wrong with saying that the Bible is importnat because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1126660849045665712005-09-13T21:20:00.000-04:002005-09-13T21:20:00.000-04:00Hi Ken. Thanks for your interesting point of view....Hi Ken. Thanks for your interesting point of view. I must admit I'm astonished by the idea that even the canonisation of the biblical texts is "inspired". All I can say is that most Protestants (and a good many Roman Catholics too, especially since Vatican II) would feel deeply uncomfortable with such a high view of church tradition. Are you really trying to bring back the Tridentine view of tradition? Or have I misunderstood?Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1126657782272038792005-09-13T20:29:00.000-04:002005-09-13T20:29:00.000-04:00I disagree. The biblical texts are inspired as is ...I disagree. The biblical texts are inspired as is their collection into a canon (or canons). The Bible derives its authority from this inspiration, that is from God, and from its canonization, that is from the Body of Christ. This double inspiration sets it apart from other inspired works of literature and music. The church affirms of the whole Bible what Paul affirmed of the Old Testament. The Bible is a sufficient and reliable revelation and theological witness; if it is not, then the message is irrelevant. This does not mean, though, that it is not conditioned or that it is inerrant in all respects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1126650260436117532005-09-13T18:24:00.000-04:002005-09-13T18:24:00.000-04:00I like this. By message do you simply mean the goo...I like this. By message do you simply mean the good news about Jesus and the Kingdom, or do you mean the entire scriptural content, or something in between?Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00236115781570052603noreply@blogger.com