← Previous · Home · Next →

My Narrow Mind (1)

Some people tell me should read more broadly. They think I should read authors of all persuasions, because if I don’t, I can’t possibly come to an informed opinion on anything. Now, I wouldn’t want to restrict myself to too narrow a field, but I don’t think I do (I even read Presbyterians, for pete’s sake!). However, I don’t want to be so open minded that my brains fall out, either.

So how widely should I read? Should I read Mormon literature? The Watchtower? Papal Encyclicals?* I think not. Why not? Because some questions are settled. You might say my mind is closed, and you would be right. The object of study is not to be “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:6–8). Joseph Smith was not a prophet, Jesus is not “a god,” and the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ on earth. I don’t need the perspective of those religions.

Of course, I’m being absurd in suggesting that anyone (Christian, that is) thinks I should read from those sources; but I’m making a point, and that is that there are limits to how open we should be. The question is, where do you draw the lines, and more importantly, how do you discern where those lines should be?

In this post, I’m going to lay out the guidelines that I use to choose the authors that I allow to teach me. There are some fundamental issues on which I have come to solid conclusions and no longer open for debate. The first two, which I will address in this article, are bibliology and hermeneutics. I won’t waste my time with authors who fail in these.

Bibliology
A teacher must believe in the verbal/plenary inspiration of Scripture, that every word — every jot and tittle — of Scripture is the precise Word of God, written down exactly as he would have himself, had he chosen to bypass the prophets and apostles burn it in stone as he did on Sinai. Of course, God did not do that. That he directed the biblical authors through their individual personalities is evident; but if we believe that God’s Word as it was originally transmitted was in any way altered or bungled by the writers, then we believe we do not have, nor ever have had, the Word of God — not really.

If we get inspiration right, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority ought be foregone conclusions, and usually, they are. Sufficiency, however, has fallen on very hard times, even among conservatives who affirm inspiration, inerrancy, etc. Psychologists are the new physicians of the soul. Get yourself a Ph.D. and a radio program, and you render pastors obsolete.

Still others are listening for God to say what he left out of the Bible. “Prophets” and “apostles” abound on the lunatic fringes of what passes for the “church” in these undiscerning days. But you don’t have to attend a charismatic circus to find folks who expect to be led by subjective impressions or the occasional audible (at least inside their heads) message from God. Chances are, there’s one sitting near you on Sunday.

This is a deplorable state for the church to be in. Sola Scriptura is the church’s anchor, the formal principle of the Reformation. Note this: without the sufficiency of Scripture, there is no Reformation. And that is where this is taking us. Few Christians anymore have the courage, or the knowledge, to deny that Roman Catholicism (or any number of other heretical sects) is Christian. If you don’t get sufficiency right, your bibliology is not right — not even close. And you open a Pandora’s Box that is incalculably destructive.

Hermeneutics
Have you ever been in a Bible study where you were asked, “What does that mean to you?” or some variation of that question? That’s a terrible question. If you think any passage of Scripture can mean one thing to you, and something different to someone else, your hermeneutics are fatally flawed. Every passage has one meaning only, and the question to ask is, what did it mean to its original audience? How did they understand it? Whatever it meant to them is what it means to you. You’ve got no new insights. You’ve got no “word from the Lord” but the one on the page in front of you. But that’s getting back to Bibliology.

Every passage must be understood in its context within the larger body of literature. It’s easy to take a verse, ignore the chapter and book, and come up with a teaching that makes perfect sense isolated from its context, but is completely wrong. Scripture interprets Scripture. The meaning of verse is tied to the paragraph, chapter, book, indeed, the entire body of Scripture.

Then there is the literary context. The Bible is a literary work, written in a variety of literary genres. Historical narrative and poetry require different interpretations. The main reason, I think, that we have different eschatological views among brilliant, conscientious scholars is that literary genre is sometimes difficult to determine.

So the task of interpretation is not easy, and it is not to be taken lightly. It requires diligent scholarship. No one teacher is going to have a flawless hermeneutic; but I at least want to know that they understand the issues and are endeavoring to “be diligent to present [themselves] approved to God as [workmen] who [do] not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

*I’m talking now about reading for the purpose of forming a correct theology, not for the purpose of informing myself of other views, which has varying degrees of value for different people. If you want to engage in apologetics involving other religions, you should read the pertinent literature of those religions; but that’s an entirely different ball game.

TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/912
Share this post: