Scripture Alone Is Not Good Enough…
July 13, 2009
… because it is only language.
Have you ever had someone try to tell you a joke, fail, then defeatedly admit that, “you had to be there”? What exactly does this mean?
It means that two or more people came to an understanding of something—not through words, or language or any other so blatantly human construct but through a shared experience. No amount of mere writing (no matter how articulate) will recreate that event for you. Storytelling can not loyally reenact what *really* happened. All storytelling is inherently reimagination.
What does this mean for the Christian?
If Scripture cannot connect us to the ancients, why do we claim an Apostolic faith?
Because Christians are not People of the Book, but in fact, People of the Spirit. The Christian believes that the Holy Spirit is what connects us, both to each other and to the Saints from the past. Perhaps even more outrageously, Christians confess it is this Holy Spirit that mysteriously connects us to the Jesus Christ we claim to know personally, despite the very obvious fact that we’ve never actually met the man.
It is only the Spirit that can bring us the “you had to be there” moments that we proudly claim changed our lives. These are the events that go beyond words, beyond language (at least, those that we know) to bring us to that place of shared experience.
Scripture, then, is not our foundation for faith, but rather the language we use to talk about that foundation: our shared experiences with the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection.*
*EDIT: This sentence was edited on 7/15 at 9am in response to calls for clarification in the comments.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
July 14, 2009 at 10:59
The knowledge of divine things is more than a simple acquaintance with words and ideas. It is a supernatural realization of the works of God, and that realization is not natural to us as finite beings. This belief is known as the doctrine of illumination. Scriptures that reveal this doctrine include but are not limited to:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (NIV) The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 John 5:20 (NIV) We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
Consider also that Peter speaks of prophets who were given inspiration to record great truths, but were not given illumination to understand the exact meaning of what they prophesied.
1 Peter 1:10-11 (NIV) 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
It is important to distinguish between revelation, inspiration, and illumination. Revelation is when God communicates truth that was not known before to man. It is truth that could not have been known in any other manner. Inspiration has to do with the communication of the truth. Revelation is the discovery of new truth, while Inspiration oversees the communication of that truth.
Not everything in the Bible was directly revealed to men. For instance, there are many personal and historical observations recorded in the Bible. The doctrine of inspiration teaches that the Holy Spirit inspired these writers to include what God wanted to be written. In various places, the Bible records the words of God, men, and the Devil. It is necessary to keep track of who is speaking, especially in books like Job where neither Satan, Job, nor his three friends spoke by inspiration of God. They gave their own opinions.
I brought up revelation and inspiration because some mistakenly confuse inspiration with illumination. Illumination refers to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon modern day Christians that helps them to grasp God’s meaning from his Word. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
Myer Pearlman points out two specific differences between illumination and inspiration:
(1) As to duration, illumination is, or can be, permanent. “The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18). The anointing that the believer has received of the Holy One abides in him, says John. “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him” (I John 2:27). On the other hand Inspiration was intermittent; the prophet could not prophesy at will, but was subject to the will of the Spirit. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man,” declares Peter (II Peter 1:21), “but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The suddenness of prophetic inspiration is implied by the common expression, “The word of the Lord came to such an one.” A clear distinction is drawn between the true prophets, who speak only as the word of God comes to them, and the false prophets who speak a message of their own devising. (Jer. 14:14; 23:11, 16; Eze. 13:2, 3).
(2) Illumination admits of degrees, Inspiration admits of none. People vary as to the degree of their illumination, some possessing a greater degree of insight than others. But in the case of Inspiration, in the Bible sense, a person is either inspired or he is not.
July 14, 2009 at 13:19
Reed,
Very nice. Reading the first time I was in hearty agreement. Going over it a second and third time I have had to take some issue with it.
It almost goes off in a gnostic direction doesn’t it? What “really” happened becomes disconnected from words, so that words become an exercise in veiling the “real,” which seems to be “the experience.” Most communication does not end in the anti-climactic “you had to be there moments.” If I tell a story, often I can tell it in such a way as to illuminate both what happened and why it was funny/moving/interesting etc… When that connection doesn’t happen it could be because of substandard story telling skills, or it could be that the person hearing is unable to understand either by limited intelligence, imagination or information.
Similarly, calling language a “mere human construct” implies that language is something forethought-out. Like the way we ‘construct’ a building. But language seems to be more complex than having a merely descriptive function. Language creates worlds as well as describes them.
If we followed this through then we might say that the historical Jesus doesn’t matter for us, or even for the first disciples, rather it was the ‘experience’ of Jesus that “really” matters. I am not willing to go there.
We cannot put our foundation on ‘experience’ alone because many of us, myself among them, go through long periods where I don’t ‘experience’ anything of the Spirit. But that doesn’t change my acknowledgment of the reality of what Scriptural and liturgical language describes.
So absolutely, Scripture alone is not enough, but neither is “shared experience.” Rather, the foundation of our faith is always on the prior action of God. As Creator of the cosmos, as caller of Israel, as Jesus Resurrected, and Spirit sent. That is, the whole revelatory action of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I wonder if I took what was a simple blog post and chased too many rabbit holes which I though arose out of it, but I think that perhaps your language was too hegemonic.
Roger,
I know you want to call us back to an evangelical central focus on Scripture, but most of us have decided that this amounts to borderline idolatry. Scripture is not the foundation, but God’s perfectly free prior acts of revelation are what we base even Scripture on
Tony
July 14, 2009 at 13:39
I would like to refer back to this post where I feel I addressed the same issue, only it came from Jeremy!
http://theophiliacs.com/2008/11/06/revelation-and-authority-an-anthropologically-honest-communal-and-pneumatological-approach/
July 14, 2009 at 14:56
Tony wrote:
Scripture is not the foundation…
RESPONSE:
It seems to me that such people as the Prophet Isaiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Aposte Paul viewed Scripture as the foundation.
When people were looking to other sources (such as spiritual mediums) for direction, Isaiah said: “Should not a people inquire of their God?…To THE LAW and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn” (Is. 8:19–20).
In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus pointed only to the Scriptures for a sufficient answer: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
In response to questioners that misunderstood the resurrection, Jesus said: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).
In response to those who lifted their traditions above God’s commands, Jesus said: “why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:2–3, 6).
In their search for truth, Paul commended the Bereans for: “examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things [his teachings] were so” (Acts 17:11).
Paul warned the Corinthians: “do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)
Paul told Timothy, “The sacred writings…are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” The inspired Scriptures are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate [capable, proficient, able to meet life’s demands], equipped [completely outfitted] for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15–17).
There were volumes of traditions that accompanied the Old Testament. However, there is no authoritative revelation that places them on an equal footing with the OT. Likewise, there are apostolic traditions that were both written and nonwritten. But, there is no New Testament evidence that any tradition was held equal to Scripture. In fact, it seems to point out the danger of placing extrabiblical tradition on a par with the written Word. At least, that’s the way I read it.
July 14, 2009 at 15:03
Roger,
Arguing for Scripture from Scripture is circular. “Sola Scriptura” is NOT found in Scripture, which is proved by the very Protestant reformers who argued for it by saying it is “consistent” with Scripture or some other vague word.
I believe that God reveals himself in acts of power, and we come to understand that more and more by the dialectic of the Spirit at work in the Church. That is, Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
July 14, 2009 at 15:04
Tony wrote:
…this amounts to borderline idolatry…
BTW, putting labels on people or on their beliefs is often used as a way to marginalize them and dismiss them out of hand. It is not really fair to them.
July 14, 2009 at 15:08
In my text above I was careful to use the words of Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul (as recorded in Scripture) to prove my point. These are three different witnesses testifying of one point. That is not circular reasoning.
July 14, 2009 at 15:16
Roger,
I do sincerely apologize. It was not my intention either to label nor marginalize you or anyone. Most if not all critiques we make here of evangelicalism are critiques that we first applied to ourselves and are meant to be a critique-in-solidarity rather than a judgemental outside voice.
Can you understand though, how a comment about the Sacraments becoming an attempt to defend ones core beliefs can be a rather odd way to start a relationship? I’m more than happy to discuss any and all topics and will concede my weaker arguments; but showing up in a flurry of proof-texting is no way to win trust
July 14, 2009 at 15:41
Tony wrote:
Most if not all critiques we make here of evangelicalism are critiques that we first applied to ourselves and are meant to be a critique-in-solidarity rather than a judgemental outside voice.
RESPONSE:
I have wondered about that… especially in light of the recent comments of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori stated during an annual event that it is “heresy” to believe that a person can be saved through a sinner’s prayer of repentance.
The AP said that in her opening address to the General Conference in Anaheim, Bishop Jefferts Schori described what she called “the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.”
According to Schori, it is heresy to believe that an individual’s prayer can achieve a saving relationship with God. “That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy.”
After reading this report, I wondered about you young men. Have you lost all assurance of eternal life? Did you leave that behind too? Are you now left to wonder if you will ever make it to heaven? Has it now become the sin of presumption to believe that one can have the type of assurance that John spoke of in 1John 5?
July 14, 2009 at 15:52
Tony wrote:
I do sincerely apologize. It was not my intention either to label nor marginalize you or anyone.
RESPONSE:
I accidentally deleted this out of my response. I meant to tell you, Thank you for your apology!
July 14, 2009 at 16:22
Roger,
I’m trying to listen to Scripture, that “harsh words stir up anger, but a soft answer turns away wrath” but it is a rare thing indeed for someone who only “met” (in an online sense, which is hardly at all) me for the first time the other day can then ask questions concerning my orthodoxy!
Did I not explicitly on the AGthinktank site repudiate the Presiding Bishop? I did.
I’m wondering about how you can “worry about {us} young men” because you don’t know any of us well enough to know whether or not you should worry. I have not “lost” anything; I have gained 1850 years of Christianity which was not in my upbringing. I am fully orthodox according to the interpretive paradigm of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and in regards to the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ.
July 14, 2009 at 17:02
I have some questions and may be misunderstanding this/or missing your points entirely so if that’s the case I apologize.
Are you saying that scripture alone is not enough and needs to be coupled with the Holy Spirit in order to be a solid foundational basis for faith,or are you saying the Holy Spirit (and our shared experiences with him) is the foundation rather than scripture? (the first sentence of your post and the last sentence seem to state two different ideas).
I guess I’m confused as to how the Holy Spirit (or our shared experiences) are a better foundation for our faith as ideas about the Holy Spirit or even experiences had with him are also widely interpreted.
July 14, 2009 at 17:13
oh and my questions were directed at Reed not the comments going between Tony and Roger.
July 14, 2009 at 18:07
Tony wrote:
I’m trying to listen to Scripture, that “harsh words stir up anger, but a soft answer turns away wrath” but it is a rare thing indeed for someone who only “met” (in an online sense, which is hardly at all) me for the first time the other day can then ask questions concerning my orthodoxy!
RESPONSE:
Based on the comments I’ve read on this website, it just seemed that “orthodoxy” might possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, well… uhm… how can I say this without making further offense?… hmmm… perhaps… take on a rather subjective and fluid state on these pages. I was not trying to offend you or to force you to choose between a harsh word and a soft answer. Please accept my apologies.
Anthony wrote:
Did I not explicitly on the AGthinktank site repudiate the Presiding Bishop? I did.
RESPONSE:
You did say that the Presiding Bishop was not worth listening to, and I received that as a statement that you would not call evangelicals heretics. But that did not answer my question concerning assurance of salvation. Reading between the lines of your most recent comments, I am guessing that you believe in some form of personal salvation and assurance.
Anthony wrote:
I’m wondering about how you can “worry about {us} young men” because you don’t know any of us well enough to know whether or not you should worry.
RESPONSE:
I guess I just worry too much… sorry if it offends you.
Anthony wrote:
I am fully orthodox according to the interpretive paradigm of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and in regards to the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ.
RESPONSE:
How do you define “the interpretive paradigm of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”?
I understand “the interpretive paradigm” from my studies in sociology, and I certainly agree with “the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed” of 381. However, I do not wish to misinterpret your meaning or usage of this phrase. So, to avoid me accidentally and unintentionally causing you any further hard feelings towards me, it would be helpful if you defined it for me.
July 14, 2009 at 18:12
Roger,
I give up. You got me. I’m a heretic.
Tony
July 14, 2009 at 18:48
So, you can’t define your own term or what?
July 14, 2009 at 18:57
This is why I’m staying out of these discussions. There’s no way to be objectively right about anything. It’s all how you were raised and what books you’ve read to support of refute those things.
I’m Switzerland.
July 14, 2009 at 20:34
Roger,
I can define plenty fine what I believe heresy can be and what orthodoxy can be. But this whole thing is acenine. At AGthinktank the thread was supposed to be about Calvin and you began to enquire as to my Christian credentials; similarly here, the post written by my friend Reed was about how the Holy Spirit is what connects us to Jesus and the Apostles, yet you have turned it again into questioning my Christian credentials.
Not only does it violate normal blog ediquete but it is rude in the extreme. How you would feel if I barged into your church or your home without knowing a damned thing about you and started throwing your credentials into question for no apparent reason.
In fact I know the reason why you are “concerned” for me. Really you are concerned for your daughters who both mysteriously married AG’ers who turned Episcopalian. Yes, I know about Shawn and James. It seems you were tired of bothering them and decided to take on a complete stranger.
Ultimately I am accountable to God first, and my bishop second. I am accountable to you tertiarilly as a fellow brother in Christ so that the Gospel I preach and believe should be such that it is recognizable to you. Which it is. You seem to think, as do most conservative evangelicals, that mentally and consiously accepting propositional truths concerning the authority of Scripture are the true marks of orthodoxy. I stand in a more ancient tradition and make no apologies for placing Christ in the middle.
I am going to ask that you keep to the post topics. If you want to remain ‘concerned’ for me you can email me or comment on future blog posts. But I am discontinuing the defense of my orthodoxy.
***
ADJ,
I know that you have ‘found the light of reason’ but save your sarcasm for one who cares
July 14, 2009 at 21:02
I wasn’t being sarcastic.
July 14, 2009 at 21:07
ADJ,
It doesn’t matter. Since your “coming out” you’ve been rather dismissive to those of concrete faith around here and I don’t appreciate it. You’re trust in “science” and “reason” is just as hopelessly naive as any other foundational epistemology and if you had actually read philosphers like David Hume, or Thomas Kuhn, or Jaques Derrida, or Francis Lyotard, or Polyani et. al. instead of bitchy blogs by ex-believers you might treat people with a bit more respect.
July 14, 2009 at 21:10
That was a lot of writing but no answer to my simple question…
If you wanted to lecture me about board etiquette the time was when I first got off topic…
All I asked you was a simple question, please define “the interpretive paradigm of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.”
If you cannot define it, then just say so. You have typed two pages that could have simply been one sentence if you had defined your term.
I never called you a heretic. For the record, I do not believe you are a heretic. I am simply asking you to define your term. I’m sorry if that offends you.
July 14, 2009 at 21:17
Roger,
I mean it interprets the world. The world is created by God, redeemed by Jesus, and continually reconciled by the Holy Spirit. It interprets the OT and clarifies the NT.
July 14, 2009 at 21:26
ADJ,
This is a post-evangelical tea party, at least that is what the it says at the top of the page. It is an open blog.
It is supposedly about discussing theology, christian origins, unorthodoxy…
Those are topics that I am interested in. I honestly do not understand why my statements and questions seems so offensive. I do not claim to have all of the answers.
I do have a great deal of respect for men like Dr. Ron Rhodes, Dr. D.A. Carson, Dr. Gordon Fee, and Dr. Norman Geisler. I believe they have many more answers than I have. They seem to have an easy time handling questions about church history, textual variants, and faith in God. Are their views and opinions allowed on this blog?
July 14, 2009 at 21:28
Tony,
Thank you! I will take an extended break from this blog because I seem to have worn out my welcome. I apologize.
July 14, 2009 at 21:33
Roger,
You are always welcome. Our introduction to each other is rather similar to mine and George Wood’s when I stormed onto AGthinktank and acted like a fool. We got around to each other and I suppose you and I will, with patience, something I haven’t always had much of.
Blessings,
Tony
July 15, 2009 at 0:24
tony, your comments toward the other tony were quite dismissive and condescending. I can understand why you hold a different epistemology than adj. that said, it seems arrogant of you to presume you are more well read or be tter educated. the point of this blog has always been to take the high road and try to avoid childish condescention. I can understand your frustration at tony’s dismissal of your perspective, but I honestly did not get anything condescending from his remarks. I think that you may have misinterpreted them. all I am saying is that we should avoid degrading each others level of knowledge or education on given matters. I think adj was just trying to bring his perspective to the conversation and it seems you became quite defensive and vitriolic for no reason.
July 15, 2009 at 2:30
Jeremy,
The way ADJ responded to cheryl d naumann was unfortunate. But you may be right, I was over-reacting a bit. For that Tony, I’m sorry.
But I wasn’t so much reacting to his comments on this thread as much as I am to his last post(s) where he seems to imply that he is taking the “rational” road as to where he was. I am just as capable of using reason as the next guy, but I have to balls to admit of an inability to objectively and foundationally describe the cosmos.
July 15, 2009 at 7:58
I have posted my comments here:
http://theophiliacs.com/2009/07/15/scripture-is-not-good-enough-ii/
July 15, 2009 at 12:18
Wow, I leave you guys alone for two days…
July 15, 2009 at 16:22
Nom de mille sacre cochan! Tony, I see that you met my father-in-law. Thanks for exponentially increasing the awkwardness level of the next family get-together for me
Seriously, I am sorry that your introduction to each other was slightly rocky. You’re both such intelligent people. Oh well, if there’s hope for you and George Wood (and me and GW for that matter) there’s hope for you and Roger. I just want to say that I like talking to both of you. I am thinking of writing a post about Bishop Schori’s comments once (if) I sort them all out.
James
July 15, 2009 at 17:36
To Roger,
I don’t know what gave you the impression I was offended and I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m going to assume that comment was directed elsewhere.
To Tony,
Just because we can’t explain something doesn’t necessarily make it God’s work, and it certainly makes no case for or against my masculinity. If this was your true response to something I’ve written elsewhere, you might have mentioned it earlier.
All in all, you’ve put an awful lot of words in my mouth in a very small space and I really don’t feel like dragging that out, suffice it to say just because I don’t name drop doesn’t mean my entire bibliography consists of mere bitchy bloggers.
Et al:
I think the aim of my first comment has been entirely misconstrued. When I ended it with the Switzerland comment, I intended that to mean, “I’m neutral on these matters,” and not, “You’re all idiots.”
Why I am Switzerland:
Two people can be very well researched and in full possession of their mental capacity and come to starkly different interpretations of scripture.
People, in general, can also be poorly researched or a little nuts and come to any number of wild interpretations.
My issue is not with the crazies, it’s with the well educated and well read people who make fantastically convincing arguments, yet still disagree vehemently and, at times, divisively, over how to interpret scripture.
What’s the deal breaker in those cases? I can’t just side with someone because I like them more, I know them better, or their book had a better bibliography. There is no coin flip, either, since that makes the decision completely arbitrary.
If you’re both sane and rational, both well read, both steeped in tradition and honestly seeking the truth, yet you end up at opposite ends of the spectrum, who is right? I really want to know. I do think there is an ultimate Right and Wrong.
But I can’t just put that deciding vote in the hands of something invisible “right now.” What if I get it wrong? What if that feeling was from the beer and not the holy spirit?
Or what if you both feel the spirit has lead you to your opposing viewpoints? Then we’re really in trouble.
So for the time being, I’m experimenting with discovering morality and ethics in a spiritual vacuum to see if it works or makes sense at all. If not, well…. destroy and rebuild.
July 15, 2009 at 21:38
ADJ,
You caught me with my pants down. I’m sorry for being presumptuous.
July 15, 2009 at 22:00
No worries, man. If I’ve been arrogant or overly sarcastic (who, me?) in previous posts, I’m sorry as well. I’ve re-read them and yeah, some of it could come across rather mockingly.
I probably should have had the wife proof-read. She tends to help me take the edge off.