This may be a little outside of our more recent readings, but I'd like to go back to the day in class when we discussed how fully or literally we must believe Scripture for the foundation of our faith. How necessary is it that we believe everything in the gospels happened just as they say it did? Are some things just stories or are they all fact? I don't know if we'll ever really be able to answer all these questions. In fact, I'm pretty sure we won't be able to. I guess the issue for me is what is the "mere" portion that I must believe in order to support my faith?
I honestly have to admit that saying all of it could be stories and it wouldn't matter doesn't ring true with me. Neither do I believe that we can pick and choose what portions to call "valid." If all Scripture is divinely inspired, shouldn't all of it carry the same weight. I don't give much weight to a brutally literal and extremist interpretation. For example, I've heard it said that the Bible can't be infallible because Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but science tells us it isn't. So does that make the Bible worthless for pursuing truth? Probably not, unless you intend to use it as a botany textbook. In that case, you'll need to pay $100 more for the newer edition.
I guess I find it the most reasonable to put the same amount of belief in all portions of Scripture, which may then be interpreted in various lights, although not necessarily with the same amount of validity. I just can't bring myself to throw my soul on the mercy of an event like the resurrection recounted in Scripture and then turn around and dismiss the virgin birth as simply a good story. And yet, if it were possible that someone disproved Jesus' turning water to wine, my faith would by no means be shattered.
When discussing truth, we need a standard by which to measure it. For me, that standard is Scripture. So I choose to put faith in the writings of men from 2000 years ago, even if I won't ever be able to prove the absolute truth of every recounted event.
Yes, it does seem important to regard ALL of Scripture as divinely inspired -- although it's important to recall that it was written by human beings, too. I guess the questions to ask are:
ReplyDelete1. What is the "purpose" of the inspiration of Scripture? To give us accurate historical and scientific and ethical information? Or to tell us the story of God and humanity? Many of us assume that if Scripture is inspired, then it cannot be mistaken about any detail, even of the mustard seed variety. Should we make that assumption? Why?
2. Many statements about the authority of Scripture are carefully put for a reason. For example, that it's infallible in matters of faith and practice. Not infallible period, but infallible in anything that matters in faith and life. Or that it's infallible in all that it intends to teach. And that leaves open the idea that the real message of Scripture is unfailingly trustworthy, but there may be plenty in the details or the background that we shouldn't accept as authoritative.
On matters of historicity, we should ask whether the Bible presents an event to us as history or as myth or parable. If a passage reads like history and we learn that the events it described never happened or happened differently, that's a problem. But if someone thinks that the story of the prodigal son is a parable, or that early Genesis or Job is myth, because of the nature of those texts, then they aren't saying the Bible is mistaken. On their view, the mistake would be to see what's meant to be a myth as a piece of history.
I must stop now, though this could go on and on.
I have struggled with the concept of what makes scripture true or just a good story as well. I look at the miracles throughout the Bible. So many say well those happened then and don't really happen today. But could they still happen today? Is it because we are not looking for them? Is it maybe because we don't have the faith in them? Whether scripture may just be a story in a book or God breathed. I believe that God can still work through them just like he can work through that botany book as well.
ReplyDelete