There is, I believe, a current, ongoing assault on the Bible in our world today. It comes from all sides. Atheists and skeptics love to wrangle over it, popping up in Christian places complaining that we just have a man-made book with no real value and telling us what it teaches and how it's wrong (which, of course, makes no sense if it's a man-made book with no real value). (I mean, if it's man-made and pointless, don't try to tell me what it means.) You have to expect that out of the skeptic. But it also comes from those "within", folks identifying themselves as "believers". It comes from the Pentecostal types who claim the Bible is fully true, but perhaps not entirely sufficient, so they're getting helpful insights outside of the Bible straight from God and you had better not question the Lord's anointed. It comes from the extreme liberal wing that holds to "Christian" like a vegetarian crab sandwich. I mean, they say they're Christian and then deny everything Christian. No, Christ isn't the only way. No, we are not saved by grace. No, Jesus was not God. And on and on until whatever it is they end up with--and specifically it is not biblical--is nothing really related to "Christian".
There is another source of this assault. It's somewhat slippery, too. These types claim a great respect for the Bible. They assure you it is the Word of God. Well, mostly. Some will shift off to "contains the Word of God" instead because clearly some of the Bible isn't ... well ... true. But generally. However, most of this particular breed will verbalize that the Bible is true and is the Word of God. That is, until you actually try to refer to the Bible as the Word of God. Or, at least, in a place that disagrees with their view. Then you're in trouble. Oh, and never suggest the Bible is inerrant. That's just crazy. But what they like to tell you is, "You're conflating your opinion into God's Word!" How? "Well, you said that Jesus is the only way and that's just one view of what it means." Or, "You're homophobic and claim the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin but we know better today." In other words, when you offer a clear presentation of biblical texts interpreted as it is and in the longstanding, historical orthodox way, if it disagrees with them it is "conflating opinion".
Now, this sounds very ... holy. Certainly people have and do conflate their own opinions as the Word of God and they're wrong. But in every case I can find you simply have to use Scripture to demonstrate that this opinion isn't biblical. But what they're pointing to is anything that disagrees with ... their opinion. Clear texts cannot mean what they say if they violate these folks' opinions.
What most people don't see is that this isn't an attempt to uphold the sanctity of the Bible. It is simply an end of anything usable in Scripture. If plain readings of explicit texts and historic orthodoxy are unreliable, then what do we have? If you want to call it "the Word of God", it doesn't help if your "Word of God" is unknowable and uncertain. If all understanding of Scripture must be viewed as opinion, there is no authority in Scripture. But if all understanding of Scripture is opinion, why do they argue about my understanding so much? Hmmm, methinks they doth protest too much ... or something like that.
It sounds intelligent and holy. "Don't conflate your opinion into God's Word." But when it is used to say, "All understanding of Scripture is opinion"--and, make no mistake, when you boil it down that is the intent--then it is nothing less than an assault on the integrity and authority of Scripture. Just like the skeptics or the liberals. Perhaps worse because it almost sounds like a call for a greater respect for the Bible. Which it isn't. Deflating God's Word to mere opinion is not a defense of the Bible. Don't make me go all Bibley on you.
Clarification
You have to know that this whole thing strikes a nasty chord in the "Don't conflate your opinion" group. Why? Because, obviously all Bible interpretation is opinion. "So," they will object loudly, "we do hold the Bible in high regard as the Word of God. It's Man's interpretation that we question." And, again, it sounds holy. At least, "holier than thou." Because, you see, while affirming on one hand a high regard for the Word of God, they have completely undercut any ability to have the Word of God. Do you see that? If all interpretation is opinion and all opinion is fallible, it is impossible to have a reliable Word of God. Oh, sure, not because of the Word of God, but because of the interpreter of the Word. The result is the same. The final product you have in your hands is unknowable and uncertain. It's the same position the agnostic often takes. "Sure, there may be a God, but if there is He is unknowable, at least to any certainty." Even so the Bible. It may be the Word of God, but since all interpretation is human opinion and all human interpretation is fallible, all interpretation is fallible and the Word of God is useless, in the final analysis, in the correcting of human opinion. Like the Gnostic heresy, the argument has the appearance of wisdom but is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23).
6 comments:
In short, to say that interpretation is opinion is to simply carve out for one's self loopholes necessary to believe what one wants to believe, what has the most appeal, what one's itching ears want to hear.
It also brings to mind the equally frivolous "layers of meaning" angle I've seen played too many times. This allows for alternate opinions because verses or passages simply have more than one way of understanding them...allegedly. Never am I supplied with a list of those varied meanings that comprise the layers. I state what the text means, based on the words present for all to read, and the other person provides his alternative, and it seems that's the extent of the "layers of meaning" for that passage. Two layers. What others can the person provide that makes sense of the term "layers"? Or what other passages can the opponent highlight that have more than two? "Layers" of meaning? It's a marketing term to justify the very same corruption of the text we see in the "interpretation is opinion" angle.
It is also to ignore the plain promise Jesus made to provide the Spirit to lead us into truth ... as if all we have here is opinion.
I get the "layers of meaning" (and even the "opinion") thing, but why do they keep stretching them into essentially, "So it does NOT mean what you said and it DOES mean what I said because I said so"?
Therein lies the rub. To dismiss an interpretation as mere opinion suggests the opinion of he who did the dismissing is the valid of the two. It does no good to simply say, "Believe what you want, but that's just your opinion" when truth is being sought. One opinion is definitely wrong, even if both are not perfectly true. What I want to believe is that which can be shown to be true or convincingly argued to be true. There is no "layers of meaning" argument that can result in two equally valid interpretations, especially if those two interpretations are distinctly opposed to each other.
NOTE: For the sake of clarity, I do not refer to parables, which uses stories to parallel a message. There, certainly are two meanings, but the point of the parable is not, say, where the seed of the sower landed. There is only one meaning to that parable intended by Christ.
Nor do I refer to metaphors, such as "salt and light", nor hyperbolic expressions such as "hate thy mother and father", nor "pluck out your eye" rather than to gaze lustfully and other such wordplay. Yet all of these are used to teach us something quite specific and are irrelevant to that teaching aside from their use as illustrations of the lesson. I've seen these types of things used to support the "opinion" argument you discuss.
"Our opinions about doctrines are unprovable opinions. Point blank. Not a provable, demonstrable fact."
From the above quote it seems reasonable to conclude that Dan has finally answered your long standing regarding whether or not there is anything in scripture that can be stated with any high degree of confidence.
You know, Craig, I would think this would be the clear conclusion, but if you offer that clear conclusion from the statement, it will be denied. I don't know how. I don't profess how to understand that all Scripture is understood by unprovable opinions rather than demonstrable facts and yet we can have a high degree of confidence about anything in Scripture.
Yeah, I know. His position is almost incoherent. He seems to be saying that we can't know anything about anything related to the Bible with perfect certainty (Yet he continues to insist that people hold the position that we can know everything about the Bible with perfect certainty), but at the same time denying that it is possible to know anything at all about the Bible with certainty. It's nuts.
Post a Comment