On another forum, a poster made the comment:
“… The general framing is usually that YECs have one view of scripture which is a high view by virtue of being a literal view, and OECs and TEs are trying to show them that our views qualify as high as well.”
I reading that, I have several questions. 1. What is a high view of scripture?
2. Does the EC/TE position have that view? and 3. Is a so called high view of scripture really a positive thing, or should scripture be read with a willingness to see it with more flexibility?
Historically, Protestants – especially in the Reformed and Lutheran traditions – have absolutely claimed a “high view of Scripture” in the sense that Scripture is God-breathed, infallible, and the supreme authority.
I’d be shocked if anyone among the above crowds thought so.
Obviously, the folks in #1 think so, which is why the more vocal among them will either declare Biologos anathema or “cross to the other side of the street” to avoid them.
It seems like one of those things where it could mean what you want it to mean, but the implication when used by YEC organizations is that “high” is superior to “low” and so that’s what you should be aiming for. The problem is, there will always be people willing to go “higher” than others (as is true with many moral positions), so where do you draw the line between respect and obsession? Good questions… wish I had some answers!
From the 16th century on, the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, etc.) did:
Insist that Scripture is the highest authority (sola Scriptura, properly understood).
Speak of Scripture as infallible and fully trustworthy.
Contrast this with what they saw as Catholic over-reliance on tradition and magisterial authority.
So yes, there is a Reformation DNA of:
“We have a high view of Scripture; Rome has subordinated Scripture.”
But:
They did not equate a “high view” with “my ultra-literal reading of Genesis 1–3.”
They did not face Darwin, modern geology, or modern biblical criticism, so the fault lines were very different.
Luther and Calvin both used figurative and accommodative readings in various places; “literal” did not mean “flatly wooden.”
So: historic Protestantism has a strong “high view of Scripture” rhetoric, but it was not originally code for “young-earth anti-evolution hermeneutic.”
YEC has a low view of scripture because it won’t deal with the text on its own terms, they have to bring in an approach dictated by premises from a MSWV.
Or will consider it to be a matter on which scripture is silent, still say that scripture is inerrant, and not deviate from their official confessions (at least, for most denominations) at all by doing so.
I’d say sola scriptura proponents have a really high view of scripture since they appear to treat the Bible like it fell right out of heaven. If you want an accurate understanding of Rome’s view on Scripture, it can be taken from Dei Verbum
For holy mother Church, . . . holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
I would be 100% on board with this if not for the last line of the first paragraph: "they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
One that sees scripture as coming from God rather than men.
The problem is that the scripture most people read are translations. And the work of translations reveals the role of culture and human language even in the sources. Therefore, there simply is no rational way of pushing a 100% from God view of scripture. But then there really isn’t much that is rational about YEC so perhaps there is a kind of consistency in this refusal of rationality.
EC/TE is not a singular view and how high the different perspectives view scripture varies considerably.
To the first part I say, not when it abandons/rejects rationality.
Flexibility is exactly what many Christians do not want and why they oppose lower views of scripture. But I think there is good reason to doubt whether flexibility is really avoidable. I see no real basis for objectivity and the unavoidable subjectivity is inherently flexible.
P.S. I go for as high a view of scripture as I think is rationally supportable. For the most part, this mean generally and practically taking scripture as coming from God until some consideration forces forces us to pay attention to the human impact and influences.
From the OP I take the “High” view as being related to Godly authorship and authority that requires all theological knowledge to be derived from Scripture. I guess the problem is that there is no universal understanding of Scripture so that deciding what is or is not direct from Scripture becomes the issue. In that sense the “high” view is that they have it and others do not. IOW their view is higher than anyone else’s and so cannot be challenged or disputed.
In that sense. anyone who claims correct or infallible understanding of Scripture is claiming the High Ground or a High view of Scripture.
(and there are quite a few here with that claim, not all being YEC)
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
11
My immediate reaction is to look at literature outside of the Bible, such as the novel Animal Farm. Is it a high view of Animal Farm if someone thinks it is a literal historical account of animals taking over a farm? Or is a high view an understanding that Animal Farm is a metaphor for the Russian Revolution? I tend to think it is the latter.
That depends on the particular proponents. The conservative (properly speaking) view is that only scripture is ultimately authoritative – a view taken from the church Fathers.
I think my view of scripture is high because God inspired it and uses it to mediate the sacred. Some might insist only their literalist interpretations are high. Some like @St.Roymond would say these literalist interpretations are so far removed from the genre and historical understanding of these texts by ancient authors they are actually low in practice.
It’s a fluid term. I’ve used it before to denote literalism but it certainly is not a very precise phrase. It is probably best to be avoided.
The analogy is beneficial but as far as I know, Animal Farm is not anyone’s sacred scripture nor thought to be inspired by God by millions of people. The term definitely relates to how we understand inspiration. I think the sacraments analogy works better given the spiritual aspect of the issue. Like @St.Roymond , you seem to equate “high view” with correct interpetation.
I think it is more than just certainty on what it says, it is also binding on what it says. IOW having found the “right” understanding everyone must bow to or comply with it (Resistance is futile!)
Perhaps you would explain what you mean by this, Merv. Coming from a tradition that talks about a “high view of scripture,” I don’t see this (My view is higher than your view) as any kind of hermeneutical standard.
I read Merv’s “pedestal building contest” comment not as a hermeneutical proposal, but as a sociological observation. In many circles, claiming a “high view of Scripture” can function less as a descriptive hermeneutical category and more as a status marker—essentially a competition over who honors Scripture more. Merv’s point, as I understood it, was that this dynamic often resembles a rivalry over prestige rather than a substantive interpretive method. That doesn’t mean you or your tradition use the phrase that way; only that in broader church discourse, it sometimes becomes shorthand for “my approach is more faithful than yours,” which can lead conversations away from actual interpretive work.
I thought the sacramental analogy was good, but I find T_aquaticus’ Animal Farm analogy useful and accurate, too.
I find the Animal Farm analogy accurate, not because it demonstrates a way of interpreting a text, but the way the text is applied as an interpretive lens on reality. The question the reader asks, isn’t, “What does this text mean?” But “What sort of thing IS this text?” and then, “How do I use this text properly?”
We have seen many examples in this forum where the reader is using the text in this way.
I’m not denying that interpretation is involved in this process; It absolutely is. But that isn’t the reader’s main understanding of the text or use.
Terry pretty much nailed it in his reply. I’ll only add that the drive to engage in that (contest) has no or very little good effect on people’s actual engagement with Scriptures themselves, much less driving any kind of thoughtful hermeneutic strategy. All the energy and creativity goes into the ever-more-grandiose pedestal construction, leaving the actual intake of scriptural narrative itself to be little more than a dried husk of calcified tradition. Hence the modern pandemic of biblical illiteracy among Americans. Probably other places too, but I know what I see here.
Agreed. It certainly can. I’ve observed this as well.
I agree with Terry’s statements, but they are not in answer to the question that you were addressing in your post: “What is a high view of scripture?”
Whether I agree with the various concepts of a “high view of Scripture” these hermeneutic strategies don’t exist to engage in hermeneutical contest. Whether I or you find them to our taste or not, the strategies and positions have been developed in an attempt to faithfully serve and glorify God. Whether contemporary holders of these views succeed in their stated mission with the proper attitude and spirit is a different matter from the view itself.
All the energy and creativity goes into the ever-more-grandiose pedestal construction, leaving the actual intake of scriptural narrative itself to be little more than a dried husk of calcified tradition.
You must know different people than I do, who ascribe to a high view of scripture. This does not describe folks I worship with, even those whose particular high view of scripture I reject. There are many ways to understand scripture that can and do lead to vibrant lives of love for God. Many of those vibrant lives of faith take place within the “confines” of a high view of scripture.
Hence the modern pandemic of biblical illiteracy among Americans.
You’re going to have to connect the dots here. Your conclusion does not at all reflect what I have observed among those who claim to hold and whose doctrinal statements refer to a high view of scripture.
