The Bible and Knowledge 5 - Inspiration & Incarnation (RJS)

Thanks, Adam.

Note the following:

"start with induction from what he calls "the phenomena of Scripture" rather than with deduction from certain biblical statements about the Scripture."

(It is clear. For Nicole over against Beegle, "biblical statements about Scripture" are not "phenomena." This distinction, which is not demonstrated but assumed, drives the rest of the argument to follow. If it is not granted, the argument comes to an end rather quickly. )

"If the Bible does make certain express statements about itself, these manifestly must have a priority in our attempt to formulate a doctrine of Scripture."

(Yes, if. And by "express" apparently what is meant is passages that are understood by different modes of exegesis by which any other biblical statement is handled.)

"To apply the method advocated by Dr Beegle in other areas would quite probably lead to seriously erroneous results. For instance, if we attempted to construct our view of the relation of Christ to sin merely in terms of the concrete data given us in the Gospels about His life, and without regard to certain express statements found in the New Testament about His sinlessness, we might mistakenly conclude that Christ was not sinless."

(This is a nonsensical argument. No one is advocating that we limit the passages we consider when addressing inspiration like failing to address the NT letters when talking about Jesus. Frankly, it is the "express statement" people who are doing that by saying that only certain passages have priority.)

"If we sought to develop our doctrines of creation merely by induction from the facts of nature and without regard to the statements of Scripture, we would be left in a quandary."

(This is either dubious argumentation or there is a serious communication block between what Nicole is saying and what I think he is saying. Where in the world did "facts of nature" come into all this? The entire issue is how biblical passages--not just a few over against the whole, but all of them-- should be handled in talking about inspiration. To give a simplistic example, if I concluded from certain "express passages" that, by virtue of being God's word, and since God cannot lie, the Bible's reporting of history must be accurate, and then I stumbled upon the synoptic issue on the Gospels or the OT, I would not be a very good reader of Scripture if I did not allow the latter "phenomenon" to correct those express statements. And that is not just a hypothetical example. Some people will twist and turn every which way to harmonize or adjust the phenomena to fit the supposedly crystal clear express passages. Indeed, this is precisely what Nicole and many/most inerrantists, at some level, seem to argue for--but see below.)

"The present remark is not meant to disallow induction as a legitimate factor, but it is meant to deny it the priority in religious matters."

(I am glad Nicole allows induction: it is unavoidable, and even the express passages he adduces are found through induction. Moreover, the language of "priority" only makes sense if you grant the opening distinction between statement and phenomena. What I see here is a series of assertions, not argument.)

"First must come the statements of revelation, and then induction may be introduced as a legitimate confirmation, and, in some cases, as a corrective in areas where our interpretation of these statements and their implications may be at fault'"

(I am not sure what Nicole is getting at with the first clause since all Scripture is considered revelatory. However, most of this final expression is very good and, ironically, fits very well with what I am arguing here: exegesis of phenomena must inform our doctrine of Scripture. Our understanding of "express statements" must pass the test of being compatible with the Bible. As I like to say, we must labor to have a doctrine of Scripture that Scripture can actually support, not one where much of Scripture becomes an embarrassment. I am trying to see how Nicole's last statement doesn't undermine his previous points. It is possible I have completely misunderstood him.)

Marcus,

Yes, a good question. First, the purpose of my asking that question in my post was rhetorical, i.e., to get Waltke to see the need for even asking these kinds if questions in the current debate.

As for me, I don't think in terms of limits but more in terms of a "gravitational center" that brings us continually back to a core confession of Christ and his resurrection. That isn't put very well, I suspect, and may sound like smooth talk. But, I envision the contextual study of Scripture not to be a bad thing, or something that is helpful but only to a point. It is not a potentially dangerous tool, but it is a tool that is in service to a larger goal, namely following Christ.

I don't think of biblical interpretation as an activity where a box is placed around it, and Enns' box happens is just bigger than, say Waltke's, or a lot bigger than a few of my Reformed critics. I don't think in terms of a "box" with four boarders, but more of a central tethering point (Jesus) to which I am bound with a really elastic bungee cord (the Spirit). Some of us are more prone to see how far that bungee cord can go (me, Sparks, etc., etc.), but we are always snapped back by the active work of the Spirit of Christ who lives in us.

You are asking a very good methodological question, Marcus, but for which I see no real methodological answer, and things like the Chicago Statement in Biblical Inerrancy, etc., don't provide the methodological grid for me in any helpful way (not that you asked).

Exegesis and academia are as much of a journey as any other part of the Christian live. I'm good with that.

Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson's Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this...