Make a Donation

Lots of time and effort goes into creating and maintaining this site. If we've helped you, consider making a donation.  

Current Poll

I'm thinking that the new pope should be...
 

Support Us!

Buy theophiles merchandise from our store!

Latest News

Latest Journals

News Topics | Page 2 Topics

How biblical literalism took root
Bible
Written by laika   
Monday, 21 February 2011 22:37

At The Guardian:

Where does biblical literalism come from? What is the genesis, if you will, of the habit of mind that makes many Christians read the Bible with a different brain to the one they'd use with any other writing?

It is by no means an essential Christian tenet. No creed says anything about how to read the scriptures. The highest claim the Bible makes for itself is when the writer of Paul's letter to Timothy says the Hebrew scriptures were "God-breathed", which is wonderfully suggestive but hardly precise or dogmatic. I mean, Adam was God-breathed, and look what happened to him.

Comments
Search
holmegm   |2011-02-22 12:50:55
How very courageous of him to stave off this growing menace.

I'm sure he and his friends are in near constant danger of taking the Bible too literally.
SteveGus   |2011-02-22 16:15:18
Not to mention that his actual enemy is not "biblical literalism", which would appear to mean only taking the Biblical text at its face value, but rather "plenary verbal inerrancy", which is what gets people arguing about whether the earth is really flat and the sky a solid lid.
emperorbma   |2011-02-22 15:11:29
Stephen Tomkins wrote:
Hence the celebrated idolatrous aphorism of William Chillingworth: "The BIBLE, I say, the BIBLE only, is the religion of Protestants!".


I like how he divorced the context of this quote to imply that the Bible is being read without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As if by believing the Bible is the normative doctrine of the Christian faith, Protestants have somehow replaced GOD.
emperorbma   |2011-02-22 16:34:13
Stephen Tomkins wrote:
Where does biblical literalism come from? What is the genesis, if you will, of the habit of mind that makes many Christians read the Bible with a different brain to the one they'd use with any other writing?

[...]It's generally much later that a convert will have to consider concrete evidence that biblical writers were human beings, capable of being one-sided, of writing myth, of exaggerating, of guessing, of having opinions it's impossible to agree with.


Alas, Father, are the people of this age are too anthropocentric to comprehend thy Word?!

See, this is the wrong question. It is not merely "what did Paul want to say to the Galatians" but also "what does the Spirit of God intend us to understand here?" Paul's motivations can serve as a clue toward this end, but the crux of the message is Divine intent.  Through the Holy Spirit, we comprehend the intent of God.

It is precisely because of this that Scripture must be read in a different manner from other texts. Its function is not merely to be perused as "humans dealing with humans."  The literary tools that work with normal texts do not work in a way that allows them to be conducive to this spiritual perception.

It's certainly true that there is a human aspect to the authorship of Scripture, but the unifying essence is the spiritual message that brings us to God through Christ. The Holy Spirit is the arbiter of this comprehension and without His guidance, we cannot hope to analyze Scripture as God intends it to be.  Case in point, many comments on the article have noted that the devil can and does abuse Scripture.  This is certainly true. However, what the devil does not do is to seek to follow the Holy Spirit.  Consequently, he at odds with the intended message of Scripture and does whatever is possible to contradict it. A non-Christian is similarly ill-equipped to fully comprehend the inspired message because he or she is not properly listening to what the Spirit is teaching. Instead, they see Scripture through their own eyes (and whatever muddling that entails) as either something of the historical documents of our religion or with the reddened eyes of inimical hatred. Since they view them in such light, they are more focused on the warts of humanity as a sinful race than upon the intent of God. This is why we as Christians do not treat Scripture as just an ordinary book. If we did, then we would be just as confused as those who had no faith.

In fact, for that matter, we also can also disagree with some of the cultural traits, mistakes and confusing behaviors found in the Scriptural testimony with good conscience as long as we are pursuing the Spirit. Like us, the Prophets and Apostles were sinners who relied on God's grace and it should not surprise us that they do. So what of it if they were fallible? It does not invalidate the Spirit. The Bible was not given through perfect people teaching imperfect people, but rather as a perfect God teaching imperfect people; often through similarly imperfect people.

The Word is given to educate us how to follow the Lord with the proper spirit of contrition and faith. The Gospel is given to show us how to rely on His grace and the Law is given to make us aware of our need for His grace by revealing our shortcomings and by making us aware of what we may do to better pursue God's intent.  The message is one which reveals the Divine purpose rather than a list of instructions that we are to parse like a computer. The letter is the vehicle, but the Spirit is the life.

The Bible is in many ways like Communion. It is the inspired Word of God revealed "in, with and under" the visible means of human authors.
laika   |2011-02-22 17:48:55
emperorbma wrote:
Through the Holy Spirit, we comprehend the intent of God.


Ah, that would certainly account for the perfect uniformity of interpretation that we share as Christians. Oh, wait...

emperorbma wrote:
The Bible is in many ways like Communion. It is the inspired Word of God revealed "in, with and under" the visible means of human authors.


The Bible as sacrament. Interesting. And something like Communion, its efficacy not dependent on the fitness of the writer or the hearer/reader?

edit: Does the Bible, like Communion, in some wholesome way nurture the hearer/reader regardless of whether one's teacher or intrepretation "gets it right" in every respect? Whether one really understands?
emperorbma   |2011-02-22 17:49:38
laika wrote:
Ah, that would certainly account for the perfect uniformity of interpretation that we share as Christians. Oh, wait...


Fun analytical puzzle, that one.

I attribute this to some or all of the following:
1. Salvation is not determined on the basis of one's reasoning skill. Faith begets doctrinal integrity, not vice versa.
2. Sin clouds people's willingness to listen to the Holy Spirit.
3. There is deceit from the devil's machinations or other falsehood advocates that keeps people from listening to the Spirit.
4. God allows some misunderstandings to hang around for some presently unfathomable reason.
5. Some differences are about non-essentials that people are more concerned about than God is.

In general, Christians have a lot more in common as far as central doctrines are concerned although there can be substantial differences in how the conclusion is reached. Likewise, keeping a "close communion" with those you are reasonably sure are in doctrinal agreement is also good policy as it avoids unintentionally bringing about spiritual harm to oneself or others. (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29) As a result, the safest thing to say here is that the final rolls are known to God and that the grace of God is not the exclusive domain of any one denomination regardless of which one one believes to have a more faithful interpretation.

laika wrote:
The Bible as sacrament. Interesting. And something like Communion, its efficacy not dependent on the fitness of the writer or the hearer/reader?


Certainly:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The Sacraments are merely the application of Scriptural promises through visible means. The power behind them is exactly the same.
laika   |2011-02-22 18:04:37
Ah, handsomely answered, empy! I say it again: you are a treasure.

emperorbma wrote:
As a result, the safest thing to say here is that the final rolls are known to God and that the grace of God is not the exclusive domain of any one denomination regardless of which one one believes to have a more faithful interpretation.


Sometimes I'm minded to go the way of grizzly and metallurge when I contemplate the denominations. Hopefully, though, you and your man Luther are correct "that the grace of God is not the exclusive domain of any one denomination," and that we can, indeed, pick, choose, and/or roll by impress of our personal Spirit-led feelings.
laika   |2011-02-23 23:57:53
laika wrote:
Hopefully, though, you and your man Luther are correct "that the grace of God is not the exclusive domain of any one denomination," and that we can, indeed, pick, choose, and/or roll by impress of our personal Spirit-led feelings.


Really, I'm banking on it, empy, seeing as how the church that I felt "led" to join all those years ago is considered by many to be an apostate outfit, especially these days! I really thought I was joining the historically correct "one true church" at the time.

Me, you, Luther, Henry, Pastor Rick... we're all taking our chances...
emperorbma   |2011-02-24 03:39:17
For anyone who intends to follow Christ, the chance we are taking is whether God is faithful to His promises. By faith, we have assurance of this.

Really, every denomination in some way intends to invoke Christ's teaching as justification. Some denominations are more conducive to this, or more accurate about it, than others. The rules are not zero-sum, however. The "all or nothing approach" is the primary cause of problems between Christians and there is ample evidence that God does not work in this fashion.

This is not to say doctrinal integrity is unimportant, either. Rather, it is, like works, related to saving faith. As faith without works is dead, doctrine without faith is empty. Faith without doctrine, on the other hand, is brainless.

(Thought experiment: atheist religious scholar studying Christian theology versus Christian studying Christian theology)
laika   |2011-02-25 22:44:07
Well, I'll try to find comfort in your words, emperorbma. I'm just one of those who thinks that there might really be a One True Church, or at least a closer approximation; maybe I need to let go of that.
emperorbma   |2011-02-25 23:11:00
I'll not try to convince you of what you're not wanting to be convinced. I'm only trying to be honest with the way I'm perceiving it.
laika   |2011-02-26 15:51:18
emperorbma wrote:
I'll not try to convince you...


No, no, respected empy, I didn't think you were trying to sway me in any direction, persausive and convincing though you generally are. I was just more or less thinking out loud about my preoccupation with a "correct" denomination.
Only registered users can write comments!

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."
 

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles


Archives

Popular

Statistics

Members : 38704
Content : 1256
Content View Hits : 5905778

Who's Online

We have 111 guests and 28 members online
  • emperorbma
  • yckmsmkr
  • Ankvkxrv
  • Bokexpept
  • yjesatuk
  • rquuyntr
  • Jenniferkhs
  • sliccadia
  • Uncootaes
  • Boroda_BMW
  • mypeLemia
  • snarsoobbap
  • vupzlhox
  • oqeypdiw
  • zgwfgbcs
  • joeypijl123
  • MopyGymn
  • Axiommonnort
  • Christinehgf
  • rrzvpocj