I think it’s a perfectly accurate analogy. I just don’t think it is addressing the specific question in the thread. It is a great analogy for discussing genre and why literalism may not be the best solution when reading portions of the Bible.
A high view of scripture means inspiration and authority of some forum. Both @T_aquaticus and @St.Roymond took it into hermeneutics. That is not necessary and one can have a high view of scripture whether they think the account is literal or metaphorical. The most important thing is that God played a role in the composition of the text for high view proponents.
I don’t think the analogy is fully off-topic since some Christians confuse their understanding of scripture with “a high view” of scripture but it misses the most important aspect of the discussion: What role did God play?
I think you are talking about all who are part of churches who have a high view of Scripture in their doctrinal statements (group A), while Merv is talking about those who use their high view of Scripture as a weapon in debates between Christians (group B). Most of group B may be within group A, but the excesses of B do not characterize all of A.
Not to mine.
Although Adam does exhibit a high view of scripture.
His view of scripture is one thing. The way he talks about it is another. How his view of scripture affects his life and relationship to God is still another,
Possibly. Likely.
Without clarification he is lumping them all together. Along with others who, I think, have nothing to do with a high view of scripture, and claiming the whol group only has some dead husk of faith.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
27
I was equating “high view” with deeper meaning. Going back to the opening post:
“… 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.” [emphasis mine]
That’s what I was reacting to. What came to mind is other literature where a literal view would strip it of much of its deeper meaning. For Genesis specifically, when viewed metaphorically I think it is a really fascinating view of how humans relate to our conscience and the concept of sin. I’ve long viewed it as describing how we are innocent as children and then come to grips with guilt, morality, and sin as we become adults, not to mention how we start to grapple with our own mortality and suffering as we age. I think a lot of this is lost in a literal interpretation.
When Evangelicals speak of a “high view of scripture,” they mean a belief in the Bible’s supreme authority, inspiration, and complete trustworthiness as the written Word of God. This perspective holds the Bible as the final and sufficient authority for all matters of faith and practice, standing above human reason, tradition, or personal experience.
Key components of this view include:
Divine Inspiration (God-breathed): Evangelicals believe that the Bible is “breathed out by God” (theopneustos), meaning God superintended human authors such that their words are the very words of God himself. This implies a verbal (every word is from God) and plenary (the entire Bible is from God) inspiration.
Inerrancy and Infallibility: A high view of Scripture maintains that the Bible is without error (inerrant) and incapable of failing in its purpose or in anything it affirms (infallible). This belief extends to historical, scientific, and moral claims, not just matters of theology.
Supreme Authority (Sola Scriptura): The Bible is considered the ultimate authority and the only infallible rule of faith and life. Other sources of guidance, such as church tradition, councils, or personal feelings, are secondary and must be tested against Scripture.
Sufficiency: Evangelicals believe the Bible is sufficient for every spiritual need, providing all necessary wisdom for salvation and instruction for a godly life. It needs no additional revelation or secular substitutes like certain forms of psychology or self-help.
Clarity: The essential message of the Bible is considered clear and understandable to all who read it with a willingness to obey and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not just for a select few experts.
Relevance: The Bible is considered eternally relevant and useful in all times and places; it is not a culturally outdated document.
In contrast to more liberal theological views that might see the Bible as a human artifact that “contains” the word of God or is fallible in certain non-salvation matters, the evangelical “high view” holds the entire written text as fully divine in origin and completely trustworthy.
[END OF AI SUMMARY]
The easiest approach to responding to these aspects of “the High View” is to categorize the Bible as a work that is not homogenous in its merit! The Bible has truthes of the Highest View … but also includes large portions of human opinion as well.
The first level of evidence for a non-homogenous view is to compare details from Chronicles with parallel texts from the rest of the Bible (ranging from Genesis to Samuel to Kings). How else do you explain different outcomes, different key words with contradictory results, and even different numbers and lists?
Some of these differences MUST be because of human opinion.
It’s always good to have friends tugging back at me when I head off into cynical / jaded directions - yes; it is judgy. But judgment of the ‘whole’ may be needed and warranted. I too, like you, have many friends and acquiantances who are lovely, very Spirit-led people - hearts of gold and all, who would also subscribe (probably mostly by default) to something very like what I criticize here. To be fair, this thread is about what we mean by a “high view of scripture” and is not about the characters or quality of faiths of the various proponents of this. Somebody can have a heart of gold and still be innocently deprived of having anything like a robust hermeneutic, or robust knowledge and engagement with scriptural narrative. God works with us where we’re at. And most people through history had no access to any Bible reading at all (at least not first-hand). It doesn’t stop God from working through them. I agree.
Interesting topic there phil…and a good one i reckon.
Firstly, as a YEC, i reject the notion that there are two different views of scripture.
Logically if one is a Christian, how can there be two “Christian” views of Gods Words to us…either we are Christian and the Bible is His word or, we arent Christian and its not His Word (we are talking the complete bible here obviously)
Secondly, Humanity is good at playing rational word games. King Saul did this in 1 Sam 15…
9Saul and his troops spared Agag, along with the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calvesb and lambs, and the best of everything else. They were unwilling to devote them to destruction, but they devoted to destruction all that was despised and worthless.
10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.”
13When Samuel reached him, Saul said to him, “May the LORD bless you. I have carried out the LORD’s instructions.”
14But Samuel replied, “Then what is this bleating of sheep and lowing of cattle that I hear?”
15Saul answered, “The troops brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but the rest we devoted to destruction.”
16“Stop!” exclaimed Samuel. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obedience to His voice?
Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice,
and attentiveness is better than the fat of rams.
Its utter foolishness to proclaim that one is a believer in the writings of God when one explains away the inconvenient parts
such as Genesis Ch1-11,
Christs statement about the flood in Matt 24
36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,g but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious until the flood came and swept them all away.
The apostle Peters statements about the flood in 2 Pet 2
2Many will follow in their depravity, and because of them the way of truth will be defamed. 3In their greed, these false teachers will exploit you with deceptive words. The longstanding verdict against them remains in force, and their destruction does not sleep.
4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment
You cant possibly read Christs statement in Matthew 24 allegorically, the passage starts off with literal intentions (ie the Second Coming of Christ is to be a real event)…one cannot them play a word game of pretend that the evidence Christ uses immediately after that statement about the flood isnt or wasnt a real catastrophe!
So…
Phil when you make absurd claims about scriptural hierarchy, that YEC are claiming theirs is a higher revelation than yours, that is simply untrue. We are given quite direct statements about biblical understanding and interpretation from the bible itself on this topic…and the wages for that is found in the above writings i have quoted (such as what Samual said to king Saul “does God delight in the burning of offerings and the sacrifice of sheet and cattle?”
The bible itself even tells us, it is God revelation to us in the words of men (it has already been fully interpreted)
