|
| Scripture, tradition, and truth, a few thoughts to get this started. |
|
| |
In Kathy’s blog, God Didn’t Write, I used the phrase, “scriptural integrity”. Jack asked what I meant by that phrase. In thinking about the phrase I decided it was a good idea to explore what lead me to use that phrase. This may end up becoming a series of blogs, but I’ll start out by trying to succinctly define my major thoughts, and then expand if needed. I also want to point out that, while well read in certain areas, I am really not a scholar in the true sense of the word, but I do have a few opinions….oh well, let’s see where this goes. Scriptural integrity seems to me to be a basic thought for any Christian who wants to understand God and the wonders of His interaction and adoption of us, His children. Let me start by defining a few concepts. Integrity:
Integrity is the basing of one's actions on an internally consistent framework of principles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity )
Vincentian formula: St. Vincent of Lerins, “men differ in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. The rule, therefore, must be supplemented by an appeal to that sense of Holy Scripture which is supported by universality, antiquity, and consent: by universality, when it is the faith of the whole Church; by antiquity, when it is that which has been held from the earliest times; by consent, when it has been the acknowledged belief of all, or of almost all, whose office and character gave authority to their determinations. This is the famous "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus," with which Vincentius's name is associated." It has also become known as the "canon of St. Vincent" or the "Vincentian canon". The body of the work is taken up with its illustration and application.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_of_L%C3%A9rins ) I am going to use the term Church rather loosely and am referring, most often, to the early church and its councils. Integrity in understanding scripture is not an option. Scripture is not only internally complete, it also can hold up to external criticism. Many others have written great books on this area, but let me share a few thoughts. Firstly scripture itself speaks to its fullness. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Scripture also encourages “right belief” i.e. orthodox understanding of scripture.2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty; not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but, by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.Along with orthodox understanding scripture admonishes us to use it properly, reflecting the power of that “right use”. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.OK, these are all basic foundations, but the question comes when there is disagreement on what scripture means. The “pat” answer is. “the Holy Spirit revealed this to me”. While I have a great trust in people being led by the Holy Spirit, there is still a need for careful discerning of what is said in these moments, thus the “Rule of Vincent”. Let me explain a bit. In the first 6 to 7 centuries of the church there was a need to clarify what was understood about God, in particular Christology, or who was Christ. It is, without question the most essential question of all. Why, because if we believe in Christ wrongly, we do not understand who God is, and thus will teach people erroneous ideas about God. Seems simple, but it ended up dividing a unified Church into what we have today. We are, in essence, children of divorce. OK, lots of words, but little content. Let me say this, I will try to tackle the various issues, one at a time, in a sequence of blogs to follow. Sorry no answers at the moment, I really do want to think abot this before i "dash' off some thoughts. Here are the future thoughts.1. What is authority? This will, I hope, reflect on how I have chosen to discern what authority is, and how it relates to scriptural interpretation. This is a huge issue for us, and the early church addressed it by adopting Vincent’s formula.2. Why it’s important to understand the early Church’s concept of explaining God. They believed that because God was infinite we could talk about who he wasn’t but could never explain fully who He was, thus the creeds. The creeds didn’t draw a box around God, they explained some about who He wasn’t, also the reason for creeds and their relationship to scripture.3. Not trying to stir things up, but I will think about trying to give a more thorough response to the idea of translations, and my thinking about translations vs. devotional versions. 4. I want to think about the idea of historic precedent for understanding of scripture. I have found nothing new from any preacher/teacher on TV or radio. That is as it should be, but in saying that, I also have found no new heresy, all the ones proposed by people in this time have their foundation in history. 5. I would like to think a bit about the influence of the worst of the heresies, in particular gnosticism. I think we are very unaware of it’s strong influence on the Church as a whole, in fact I believe it is the only one that is true to its foundation. I think that gnostic thought comes from satan’s first lies in the garden, and I think he’s found no need to deviate from that course in all of history. Lastly, remember, I am no theologian. I will gladly accept criticism that balances thought, scripture, history, and example. Ok, I know, a bit grandiose in it’s intentions, but let’s see how far I get, and if there are others who would like to “guest blog” about an area related. OK? Again, please remember I am not a theologian.
I will close with a proverb that God has been laying on my heart, maybe it will reflect on why I think about these things. Pro 24:3 Through wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; Pro 24:4 and by knowledge the rooms shall be filled with all precious and pleasant riches. |
|
| To add a comment to "Scripture, tradition, and truth, a few thoughts to get this started." |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
 |
|
|
WOW... Dennis... I guess I just haven't read your blogs yet...
Jesus did tell me once though that GOD is the all knowing Highest Known Intellegence.... see Jesus told me there is facts of Intellegent design... a GOD Yaweh.. you know him o too well and you know the bible...
I love you too
7 of 9 |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
You said "OK, these are all basic foundations, but the question comes when there is disagreement on what scripture means. The “pat” answer is. “the Holy Spirit revealed this to me”. While I have a great trust in people being led by the Holy Spirit, there is still a need for careful discerning of what is said ..."
Amen and Amen. This is why we need to be Berean-like in our discernment. I also think the issue boils down to authority. We tend to accept only one authority and that is the person in the mirror. All other authority is ok as long as it falls in line with what we think. God turns that upside down and therein lies one of our stuggles.
Great post Dennis.
|
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Dennis,
I'd love to come along for the ride. Like you I am no Theologian... I am open to learn, and if there are points that I can share, I will do so... Your opening blog has me intrigued.
Ditto Voice,
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Good post, Dennis! Maybe edition 10 of this series can explore this line further (it seems to have a sermon lurking within, and it has grasped my interest!):
Scripture is not only internally complete, it also can hold up to external criticism. |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Great blog Dennis! I loved the Proverb you quoted at the end. Oh that we will search out wisdom and seek her as a precious jewel. I loved the Vincent Rule. Thanks for sharing, I look forward to the sub-blogs on this! *grin* Your brother in Christ, Brent |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
I like what you said and actually agree with your conclusions, but must submit a few definitions of my own which you seemed to gloss over.
1. When 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to scripture it does not refer to what we call Scripture today. The NT was not canonized for several hundred years after Timothy was written. Most likely Paul was refering to the OT, the Hebrew scriptures by definition. Now by extension, I would believe that the principle from 2 Timothy 3:16 applies also to what we now refer to as the Bible, but was not specifically refering to that.
2. When 2 Corinthians 4:2 refers to not handling the Word of God deceitfully, it was also not refering to what we now call the Bible. It was more correctly refering to either the reading of the Old Testament (2 Corinthians 3:14) or the Word of God written on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:3) or most likely in the context, the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:3). Scripurally, the Gospel message is often referred to as the "Word of God."
I love your explanation of Vincent's Formula. It is so much better than the authority of the Magisterium and the Popes, which history has proven to be false. For me that authority is education. I do not believe that uneducated preachers and other such popular gurus have any real authority, because they are not AN authority.
Thanks for a stirring post. |
|
|
Follow this blog
