Higher Criticism, Pete Enns, and Biblical Authority

Faith & Science Conversation
86

I believe:

  1. the Bible is in some sense authoritative

  2. Yes, in some sense

  3. that the Biblical books supply a revelation of God, not by being totally inerrant or morally flawless, or even by being theologically complete, but by using even error and false religious ideas to reveal God. I believe that the contradictions, doublets, errors of fact, and variant accounts of the same things, have a positive theological function. I think attempts at harmonisation are a bad idea in principle.

Whether there was one single Isaiah, or 2, or 3, or 12, or 20, or more, is ISTM of no importance compared to the fact of the book’s Divine Authorship. Not that its human authorship is of no importance or interest; but its Divine Authorship is what gives it authority for God’s People.

I don’t expect total inerrancy from the Bible, nor perfect morality nor perfect and complete theology. I expect Divine Authoritativeness, even if it is clothed in human errors. I think it is a mistake to argue that God is Perfect, therefore all God’s Acts are Perfect, therefore God’s inspiring of Scripture is Perfect, therefore the “God-breathed” Scriptures are free from all error.

I believe that the Bible is “the Word of God in the words of men” - and that because men are flawed, so are their works, and so, therefore, is the Bible. The fact of the many imperfections in its transmission, translation, editing, commentating, and so forth, makes it likely that the Divine Books, far from exempt from the flaws of which its transmission is full, are inseparable from that transmission, and share fully in its imperfections.

I think that the Biblical books differ from all other books, not in being alone inspired, unlike all those others; but in their purpose and their Divine Authority. I don’t think the difference between the Bible OTO, and great literature OTOH, is that it is inspired and they are not. I think there are degrees of inspiration: within the Bible, within other books, between those others, and between them and the Bible. I think Biblical inspiration is a special instance or application of a normal, or maybe universal, Divine action.

4 Likes
87

Hello there. :slightly_smiling_face:

Did you see the Bonhoeffer, above? There are some shared sentiments, but not all.

88

Thanks. I think I agree with everything in that Bonhoeffer quotation.

1 Like
89

WELCOME BACK!

In which ways is the bible not morally flawless, specifically, IYO? Would you mind clarifying your thoughts on this?

90

Another possible take on this is that it is meant quite literally. People directed hatred and violence against him and he suffered (bore) the consequences of their actions without returning the same on them. And then (less literally) since the actions of those around him are representative of the behavior of us all, he bore the sins of us all. In this sense you also might for a bit bear the sin of someone else if they treat you with contempt, and you bear it by not taking vengeance and unloading your suffering back onto them; but you pray for and seek to bless them instead.

2 Likes
91

God is perfect but the bible includes descriptions of this God that are not accurate? Is that what you mean?

If Jesus had not willingly endured unjust suffering, we would have remained lost in our sin. Instead, Jesus bore, or “carried,” our sins on the cross. He actually died in order to pay the penalty for our sinful actions. He became our substitute, dying the death we deserved. God, the one who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23) judged Christ for our sin in that moment, pouring out His wrath on His own Son to satisfy the payment for our sin. He endured suffering so we could die to sin. In that action, by God’s grace and through our faith in Christ, we have been freed. Believers are free from the price of our own sin, and from the power of sin to poison our choices. Now, thanks to Jesus’ suffering, Christians can live righteously. We don’t have to sin; we are free to make right choices that please and honor our God (1 Corinthians 10:13). www.BibleRef.com

1 Like
92

How do we decide personally, individually, which passages to accept as accurately portraying God as He is and which ones don’t? What criteria do we apply? What do we base our decisions upon?

93

The guidance of the Spirit.

Does it sound like it describes Christ and the way he interacted with the needy people (all of us) around him? If it doesn’t … then it probably isn’t accurate of God.

94

Would you mind sharing what you believe to be several of the “many imperfections” you’ve found?

95

Paul says there is a Law of Sin.
Rom 7:23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24
Rom 7:23 but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Jesus had no sin, but for Him to accomplish God’s goal of saving mankind from the power of sin, the following had to happen.
2 Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Sinful actions come from sinful thoughts, and sinful thoughts come from the Law of Sin within our bodies.
Jesus literally became sin to destroy its power over us. The result is, we who trust in the cross, become the righteousness of God.

96

How can anyone know what Christ seemed to be? What do you depend on to show you how He interacted?

97

Beneath these questions is usually a sort of “directed fishing trip” to try to get somebody to declare that “the Bible” has to be the finally accepted foundation for all else, and that as such it should then be exempted from any skepticism … “God’s most reliably delivered and understood Word to us” as it were.

But I have a different answer for you. I know (by faith) what Christ is like by the collected testimonies up and down the ages (including those testimonies recorded for us in scriptures), and also including Christ’s presence and work on me. This fellowship of acting disciples taken as a whole, and selecting among the ones who best followed and exemplified Christ is how I know what Christ is like. There are wicked disciples and disciples who have acted wickedly, as well as people who never were disciples at all but in name only (while they were otherwise busy burning witches, enslaving or exploiting others, etc.) God’s spirit in me recoils (as does yours if I’m not mistaken, Ralphie?) from the thought that any of these followed in Christ’s ways even if some may have claimed the culturally-approved identity to gain the praise of men around them. The Bible is part of that tapestry and indeed is understood from within it.

Christ is the true foundation - its very cornerstone in fact, from which I begin to understand such parts of the Bible as I do; and not the other way around. To try to turn the Bible into our ultimate foundation is to get all this backwards, and to build a religion based on human intellect rather than being rooted in the vine (Jesus).

It doesn’t mean I understand everything. Christ has hard words too, that I struggle to understand. And I don’t pretend to like all the details he includes in his parables. But when I perceive his spirit from how he acted toward his own peers in his day, as well as his work on the spirits of his own followers ever since - right on up to us now - I have a basis for trust. Enough of a basis to say “no” to the claims of some about him, and “yes” to others.

2 Likes
98

Well, sure, except I don’t fish.

But I have a different answer for you. I know (by faith) what Christ is like by the collected testimonies up and down the ages (including those testimonies recorded for us in scriptures), and also including Christ’s presence and work on me. This fellowship of acting disciples taken as a whole, and selecting among the ones who best followed and…

Who best followed him? How did anyone figure out what He was really like in the first place? How would we know which testimonies in the bible accurately and from history reflect Christ’s true nature? Those who best followed him, in their own minds, could be witches and slave owners, depending on what they understood his true personhood to be?

Many reject him because they say we have insufficient grounds to believe He ever existed. I’m trying to understand how anyone can figure out Who He was? I get your explanation. You reject scriptures that don’t fit your definition. It seems as though you have already come to a conclusion which the scriptures must support first. Whatever doesn’t match your predetermined picture of what Jesus must be, is discarded as false or irrelevant.

Many toss his miracles right off the bat; His resurrection, his virgin birth, his divinity and more are dismissed with the flick of a wrist.

99

It would be interesting to go through the NT verse by verse to see what would be eliminated if everyone had their say. If we removed everything that people don’t accept, we might end up with about 19 words.

100

If the evangelical activity of most pressing interest for you is to enter into the Bible truth/errancy wars then you’ve already made your foundational commitment. Just don’t be surprised to discover that other Christians may not share your urgency for that same concern.

3 Likes
101

Easy answer, which you won’t like, is to only look at the earliest texts which were accepted by the church and for which a strong case can be made for apostolic or follower of an apostle authorship. Of course you would have to be willing to discard portions of the NT.

102

Would you be willing to list some examples of

the earliest texts which were accepted by the church and for which a strong case can be made for apostolic or follower of an apostle authorship?

103

Would be the Christian equivalent of Pharisees. Those that look to learning of the Word, but not the doing. Those that lack humility and pridefully go about their prayers in public places. Those that cast out demons in Christ’s name but fail to feed the hungry. It would be all of us much of the time.

2 Likes
104

Would be the Christian equivalent of Pharisees. Those that look to learning of the Word, but not the doing. Those that lack humility and pridefully go about their prayers in public places. Those that cast out demons in Christ’s name but fail to feed the hungry. It would be all of us much of the time.

jpm, thanks. I don’t understand what you are saying as a response to my question about offering some examples of the earliest texts…

1 Like
105

It was to your statement of who thinks they best follow Jesus.