So, here I am, operating on a particular paradigm when it comes to Christianity. What paradigm? My paradigm is an interwoven rug on which my theological understanding stands. It stands on the belief that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. It is premised on the belief that the Bible is God's Word. I have to pause at that to be understood. It is the belief that God breathed the Bible to authors who, in their own vernacular and under His supervision, wrote what He wanted written. It is not merely "inspired writing", but "God-breathed". Because of this, it is inerrant in its original form and absolutely rational. By rational I don't mean "makes perfect sense to me in every case", but logical. Nor is it contradictory. While the Bible is made up of 66 books, nothing in any of the books will contradict anything else in any of the books. I believe in the perspecuity of Scripture, a crazy word, hard to understand, that indicates that the Bible is not hard to understand. This doesn't require that it takes no effort to understand or that some parts are not as clear as others. It simply means that God, via the Holy Spirit, communicates His person and will to the ordinary reader using the text of the Bible. Key to my paradigm here is the belief that God uses the Holy Spirit to communicate the truth of His Word to His followers. Thus, while historic understanding is not the authoritative explanation, it is certainly informative. When I come across a new understanding of a particular passage, I get concerned. If I cannot trace my understanding of a particular passage back through history, I get concerned. I don't believe the Holy Spirit to be inept, so I see this as a vital piece of the paradigm pie.
So, along comes a "progressive" or a "liberal" or a "skeptic" or (oh, I don't know, sometimes they're all hard to tell apart). They assure me that reading the Bible "as written" is a foolish venture. Inerrancy is a myth. The Bible is full of stuff that never really happened and taking it as a historical narrative where it appears to be a historical narrative or a list of rules where it appears to be a list of rules or a moral statement on this particular behavior where it appears to be exactly that is foolishness. "Use your head," they tell me, the suggestion being that up until now I haven't. "Your way makes no sense. We've discovered a new, better way." And that "new, better way" may range from converting historical documents to myths and legends or tossing out plain references to unpleasant things like Atonement, blood sacrifice, Resurrection, or Judgment/Justice.
In my mind I hear, "Come to the dark side, Stan." But that's not entirely fair, is it? So what am I being asked to do? Simple. A paradigm shift. "Sure, sure," they suggest, "you've spent decades studying this stuff, fitting together logical trains, piecing together rational arguments and fitting Scripture to Scripture, but forget all that. Sure, sure, you've come to a clear understanding with footnotes and logical deductions included, but set all that aside. We'd like you to set aside your logic, your inerrancy, your personal history, your Church history, all that you've taken apart, examined, and put back together to see how it fits. No, no, we wouldn't exactly say, 'Throw out your Bible'. We just recommend you throw out all you've figured out so far and start our way. It's progress! It's liberal! It's ..."
Foolish. That's what it is. I hear the voice behind it. "Did God say ...?" So, no, I think I'll keep my paradigm. I think I'll keep the paradigm that the saints throughout history have kept. I think I'll stand in the company of those who have gone before and those who today stand with them. Sometimes "progressive" isn't progress and sometimes "liberal" isn't generous or freeing. On the other hand, I have it on rather good authority that those who are outside the faith will see the Gospel as foolishness. So I'll stick with Scripture, evident reason, and the saints who have gone before. I'll rely on the Holy Spirit to use the Word of God to tell me what's right, what's real, what's truth. Certainly He's a better source than those who are calling on some unsupported paradigm shift.
11 comments:
Amen.
Though I believe you have studied more deeply than I have (if we were attempt to measure), I would say you have spoken for me as well. With this in mind, I am...amused...to hear someone suggest that I regard Scripture through modern eyes only and that doing so accounts for my, what I could call, "traditional" points of view. Somehow, I'm to accept that this someone has been able to do what he believes I could not.
In the meantime, I have viewed several videos posted at Wintery Knight's blog that each present arguments for why Scripture is reliably preserved, presenting more and more support for the paradigm under which we operate. These lectures and documentaries leave me wondering when those like this someone will provide equally compelling support for their "alternate" understandings.
Stan, I have a question if you're game. Where you say things like...
In my mind I hear, "Come to the dark side, Stan." But that's not entirely fair, is it?
And...
It's ..." Foolish. That's what it is. I hear the voice behind it. "Did God say ...?"
You appear to be comparing those faithful believers who disagree with you on things like how best to interpret the Creation stories... that you appear to be comparing them/us to Satan. To fools.
For our part, when we disagree with you, we would tend to say things like, "Well, to us, the most faithful, biblical way to interpret passages like the creation story is simply in the manner they appear to be written in - which is mythic-looking to us. Our friends on the Right tend to think a historical narrative is the best way to treat that. While we disagree with their understanding, if that is what seems most rational to them and gives them the most meaning, then God bless 'em... we just disagree..."
In other words, when we disagree with you all, we don't compare you to Satan or fools, we simply acknowledge a disagreement.
My question is: Do you think we are wrong in our approach to disagreeing? Do you think we ought to compare you all to Satan and call you foolish for your interpretation, if we think ours is the most biblically, morally and rationally sound interpretation?
Or do you think there is room to say, "Well, I just simply disagree with that brother, but thankfully, we're not saved by our perfect knowledge, are we? That fella is still my brother in Christ and we simply disagree in our state of imperfect knowledge. Thank God for Grace!"?
Thanks for your opinion...
Strange. I thought I was pretty clear. I thought I said that I was talking about a different paradigm, not "how best to interpret the Creation stories." I thought I even gave examples of more than just "Creation stories" ... like, oh, I don't know, the inspiration of Scripture, inerrancy, rules, "Atonement, blood sacrifice, Resurrection, or Judgment/Justice." And yet, here you are, thinking that it's a matter of disagreement over Genesis 1.
I'm not talking about a difference over the Creation story. I'm talking about a paradigm. Thus the name of the post: Paradigm Shift. I hold to a high view of Scripture. You hold to a high view of Scripture. But our views are from radically different angles. A difference with John MacArthur over whether or not there will be a pre-Trib Rapture is not the same as a difference with Dan Trabue over Creation, the Flood, Original Sin, the historicity of Scripture, inerrancy, "epic literature", hyperbole that you read into almost meaningless, Atonement, Crucifixion, the Gospel ... shall I go on? It is not a difference over Creation. It is a different paradigm, and while you seem to think you're asking me to change my perspective on one thing, I'm telling you that you're asking me to erase a paradigm.
Is it wrong to compare your vastly different approach to Satan's "Did God say?"? Jesus told the Pharisees they were of their father, the devil. I suppose He could have been wrong. I suppose He could have just said, "Look, we disagree on how we see things, but thankfully you're not saved by your perfect knowledge, right?" He didn't. And the differences aren't small ... as I've tried over and over to tell you and to point out.
So, my question remains...
Do you think we (anabaptists/progressives) are wrong in our approach to disagreeing with folk like you?
Do you think we ought to compare you all to Satan and call you foolish for your interpretation, if we think ours is the most biblically, morally and rationally sound interpretation?
Normally I wouldn't have continued the conversation, but ... really, is that your question? I talk about a paradigm shift, a sharp and serious difference in approaches to the Word of God, a drastic and potentially eternally fatal variation, and your real question is "Do you think we ought to compare you all to Satan and call you foolish for your interpretation?" That's what you got out of the discussion? That's your biggest concern on this issue? Surely you don't even remotely think that my point was how to disagree with people??
I get your point: We sometimes approach Scripture through different paradigms. I get that is what you're saying.
I'm asking, given what you think are our different paradigms - which I guess gives you comfort in comparing those who disagree (in your mind, anyway) with your paradigm to satan and calling them fools - do you think that we, too, ought to do the same for you (those who disagree with our interpretation approach)?
I'm just curious as to whether or not you think we ought to disagree with you all in the same manner that you disagree with us? Given our paradigm and desire to follow God as we understand God, should we be comparing you to Satan and calling you fools when you disagree with us?
For my part, I'm not exactly sure that we are coming at Bible study from different paradigms. Maybe, it depends on what you mean. I guess that might be a second question I'd have of you - where exactly do you think we diverge in paradigms?
And you go on to say your opinion is that we are coming at exegesis from two radically different angles. I'm not sure that I see that. I guess it would depend on what you are meaning by that.
As you correctly note: we both hold high views of the Bible.
And, correct me if I'm mistaken but...
We both believe that we ought to interpret Scripture through Scripture.
We both believe that the point of reading Scripture is to become more thoroughly acquainted with God and God's Ways, and that the goal (at least one goal) of study is to discover God's ways and align our lives with God's ways.
We both believe it is important to understand the style of writing (ie, not to interpret history as myth, myth as history, not to interpret poetry or hyperbole as rules, not to interpret parables as history, etc).
We both believe it is important to keep in mind the text, context, language and times the text was written in.
We both believe that the Bible is not an irrational book. We both value internal consistency in our exegesis, right?
We both believe that God's Word (that is, God's Ways, what God wants, desires, wishes, demands) is infallible and without error.
We both believe that interpretations of the Bible can be wrong - that just because someone says, "but the Bible clearly says..., therefore, I believe...." does not make their conclusion infallible.
I'm not sure where we part ways in terms of paradigm. I'm not saying we don't, I'm just not sure where.
Where would you say we diverge?
If you're tired of dealing with this on your blog, I'd really appreciate an answer in email, although, I think it makes for fascinating blog fodder, myself.
Thanks.
Right, yeah, that was it. That was my primary point. "You know what the real important thing to do when you encounter a different paradigm? Ridicule it. Most importantly, compare it to Satan. Or maybe Hitler." No, Dan, that wasn't it.
Dan (and this is the end of this conversation), I have examined your paradigm and found it wanting. I'm not talking about individual views. I'm talking about the paradigm -- the overall approach. Not only do I disagree with it for a variety of reasons, but I also find it dangerous and, as I said, potentially eternally fatal.
I do not routinely call the views of those that disagree with me as satanic or foolish. There is lots of room to disagree with people. However, when that disagreement is so sharp as to be dangerous and potentially damning, it is only out of genuine concern for the truth and the eternal welfare of my readers that I point out the disparity between the Truth and these views. Jesus did it. Paul did it. Peter did it. John did it. It is a biblical thing. Not all differences call on this response. Some certainly do. (And in answer to your question, if you believe that my view will damn people to Hell, compassion would demand that you call it a voice from Satan.)
Where do we differ? I gave my paradigm. Scripture is God-breathed. It is, by definition, the Word of God and, as such, necessarily inerrant. It is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Since Scripture is best interpreted by the Author, Scripture is most certainly accurately exposited by the Holy Spirit to His followers. As such, a proper understanding of biblical truth will be traceable throughout Church history.
Yours differs. It is "inspired" but not actually "God-breathed". It is certainly not inerrant and, by definition, then, not actually the Word of God (or God is errant). It is very important, but not the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Culture tells us more important things. New is better. The Church for all its history has often been wrong and on key and constant issues. It has, indeed, taken the Holy Spirit 2,000 years to tell us what it really meant and you are the beneficiary of this new enlightenment.
How is that dangerous? You say you have a high view of Scripture and you say you hold to orthodoxy, so people who aren't paying attention might think it is true. That could lead them down your path. I hope to be a voice in the wilderness on their behalf. That's all.
Frankly, I'm not too concerned should Dan choose to believe my POV is of satan.
"Do you think we ought to compare you all to Satan and call you foolish for your interpretation,..."
I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to apply the words of scripture in the way Stan has ( I think it's probably appropriate, but...).
I am pretty sure that this:
"it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human."
is obviously a much more rational and adult way to address differences.
Not addressed to anyone at all in particular, but ...
Something, simply for clarification, that I should say is that when I called it "foolish", I wasn't speaking of a person, but rather a concept. I was saying that for me to surrender a long examined, hard earned, carefully considered, historically orthodox perception in favor of ... not, would be foolish. I was saying that it would be foolish of me to surrender my paradigm for a brand new, untried, incoherent one.
On the other hand, I said, "I hear the voice behind it. 'Did God say ...?'" When I use the phrase, "I hear the voice ...", it should be quite clear that I am saying "In my opinion" or "In my perception" or "As far as I can see." Now, if the suggestion here is that I should not have an opinion or at the very least, should not express it here on my own blog, then I'm sure that I'll have to question (again) the "liberality" of the liberal mind that apparently says "We stand for free speech ... as long as you don't say something we don't like. Please, feel free to express your opinions (as opinions). If you're going to differ with us, don't do it where we can hear it."
Stan, you are living rent free in Dan's head.
Post a Comment