Apologetic method

[rmwilliamsll]

What follows is a quote from Gary North's Crossed Fingers, pg 174-5, in a chapter titled: Authority: Biblical, confessional, Ecclesiastical and a subsection titled The Princeton Apologetic. what he is trying to do is figure out how they lost the intellectual battle against theological liberals

Because they were defenders of a particular method of apologetics, ie., the philosopical defense of the faith. this method offically appealed only to the facts: empiricism, an appeal to pure factuality. They viewed truth as inductive, not deductive. Charles Hodge insisted that "in theology as in natural science, principles are derived from facts, and not impressed upon them" this was Scottish common-sense rationalism, and it was basic to nineteenth-centruy conservative apologetics.
...
Problem: there are monay potential sources of evidence in the world of 'theologically neutral' scholarship that lie outside the Bible itself.
...
This approach to the Bible led the Princetonians to make at least two crucial compromises in the series: adjusting the genealogies of Genesis to accommodate an ancient age for the earth (William Henry Green); and interpreting Genesis as supporting(or at least not denying) a kind of theistic evolution (Warfield) Surely, these were examples of quietly importing evidence from outside the Bible into the exegesis of biblical texts--the most dangerous evidence of all: Darwinian conclusions.

What i am interested in understanding is why isn't information gained from natural theology allowed to influence exegesis? for example, the canon itself is not found in Scripture, it is fully extrabiblical. Then there are the whole questions of maps, history, and dictionaries. All are imported from the world to allow us to do legitimate exegesis and are not themselves found in Scripture.

but more than this is North's underlying contention that natural theology doesn't have a valid epistemology. Which seems to fly in the face of Roman's declaration that natural man does know truely some things about God through creation, apart from the Scriptures.

....
while researching the issues i found this useful on topic essay:
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/pkrightr.htm

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i went looking for other online forums to discuss North's book in.
one place responded, nothing positive about the book however. in this discussion this online book was mentioned:


http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html
the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
from: http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancy3_Gerstner.html#7
It teaches us that Bible writers themselves may have been laboring under erroneous impressions without this being normative instruction for us. Suppose they did think of a three-storied universe, which was the common opinion in their day, the Bible does not err unless it teaches such as a divine revelation of truth. In fact, by showing that the writers may have personally entertained ideas now antiquated it reveals its own historical authenticity without its normative authenticity suffering.
via vector: http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=48732&Main=48034#Post48732


i have several times on this forum offered this idea as a potential solution to some of the mess in the CED debate. The Bible uses ancient science as a tool to get across a message while at the same time it does not teach it as something we must believe, that is trans-time and trans-cultural, or as Gerstner puts it--normative.

for instance, the Bible uses the flat earth, the geocentric earth, slavery, etc as commonsense for that day metaphors/analogies/motifs. we distort the Scriptures when we believe that these things are to be the dominant motifs for other ages, like us with substantially different science and social organization. It is not that we can't learn from the metaphors, it is that we can not transplant them intact into our age as if God desires these ideas to be timelessly applied to all cultures as they encounter the Scriptures. normative-law-eternal, being taught, must believe, commands-----these differ immensely from metaphors, used to teach, ....

it is fundamentally a hermeneutical issue so it probably belongs on that forum rather than here, but i see it as a very fruitful area for investigation in this debate as well.
....

 

[ethos]

i went looking for other online forums to discuss North's book in.
one place responded, nothing positive about the book however. in this discussion this online book was mentioned:


http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html
the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
from: http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancy3_Gerstner.html#7
It teaches us that Bible writers themselves may have been laboring under erroneous impressions without this being normative instruction for us. Suppose they did think of a three-storied universe, which was the common opinion in their day, the Bible does not err unless it teaches such as a divine revelation of truth. In fact, by showing that the writers may have personally entertained ideas now antiquated it reveals its own historical authenticity without its normative authenticity suffering.
via vector: http://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=48732&Main=48034#Post48732


i have several times on this forum offered this idea as a potential solution to some of the mess in the CED debate. The Bible uses ancient science as a tool to get across a message while at the same time it does not teach it as something we must believe, that is trans-time and trans-cultural, or as Gerstner puts it--normative.

for instance, the Bible uses the flat earth, the geocentric earth, slavery, etc as commonsense for that day metaphors/analogies/motifs. we distort the Scriptures when we believe that these things are to be the dominant motifs for other ages, like us with substantially different science and social organization. It is not that we can't learn from the metaphors, it is that we can not transplant them intact into our age as if God desires these ideas to be timelessly applied to all cultures as they encounter the Scriptures. normative-law-eternal, being taught, must believe, commands-----these differ immensely from metaphors, used to teach, ....

it is fundamentally a hermeneutical issue so it probably belongs on that forum rather than here, but i see it as a very fruitful area for investigation in this debate as well.
....

You make an excellent point here rmwilliamsll; let us keep in mind however that we must not lose sight of the message when we view it through the eyes of our technical understanding. My point here is, scripture should interpret our understanding and not the other way around. We risk missing the true message in scripture if we allow ourselves to stray to far from the original story.

 

[inquisitor_11]

To do any sort of pure exegesis of the text would be in a word- impossible. As a historical and theological document, the cannonical texts (and their authors) often assume at least a cultural and geographic context in their writings.

For us to attempt to remove those in our exegeis, especially for an inerrentist, would certainly be an interesting, but pointless task.

I certainly agree that alot of the creationist debate would probably be resolved if a consistent (and valid) approach to understanding the bible was promoted more widely. Unfortuently the rich evangelical tradition appears to be being subverted.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You make an excellent point here rmwilliamsll; let us keep in mind however that we must not lose sight of the message when we view it through the eyes of our technical understanding. My point here is, scripture should interpret our understanding and not the other way around. We risk missing the true message in scripture if we allow ourselves to stray to far from the original story.

a lot of my reading for the last few months has danced around the liberal-conservative split in the church. conservatives hold to the value of the words themselves. i appreciate this motivation and find the advice to 'stick to the original' well placed.

 

[ethos]

a lot of my reading for the last few months has danced around the liberal-conservative split in the church. conservatives hold to the value of the words themselves. i appreciate this motivation and find the advice to 'stick to the original' well placed.

God bless you rmwilliamsll; our purpose here at this forum should guide us toward greater fellowship and not division. We can and should allow others to disagree with us about the way we view certain translations of scripture. I can and will still love the evolutionist that loves Jesus our Lord even though I disagree with his viewpoint. Let's try to all be brothers and sisters in the Spirit of Grace that our Lord shows forth in scripture. God bless.

 

[Vance]

God bless you rmwilliamsll; our purpose here at this forum should guide us toward greater fellowship and not division. We can and should allow others to disagree with us about the way we view certain translations of scripture. I can and will still love the evolutionist that loves Jesus our Lord even though I disagree with his viewpoint. Let's try to all be brothers and sisters in the Spirit of Grace that our Lord shows forth in scripture. God bless.

Very much agreed. It is sad that some want to treat this issue as one of the "essentials" of the Christian faith, and so treat it as something that has to be taught as dogma.

 

[Vance]

Oh, and just as an aside, I consider myself fully on the "conservative" side of the conservative-liberal split from the early part of this century. Rather than view the Scripture as a mere work of Man which may contain the message of God, rather than doubt what Scripture teaches and hold only to some loose moral and ethical guidelines, I hold to a very conservative line, for example, I believe the Scripture is God's Holy and inerrant message to us and I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. Politically, I am an arch-conservative. In morality and ethics, I am aslo on the far right, opposed to abortion and homosexuality. I have never taken a drink of alcohol or any drugs in my life (unless you conside cappucino a drug). I spend more time in my prayer closet than watching television.

Too often, YEC's tend to think that TE's are, by definition, liberal. It is VERY possible to a very strict conservative in every sense and still hold to a TE position.

 

[billwald]

you can get North's books free at WWw.freebooks.com

The world view of North and his Reconstructionists, mostly OPC, is that only "real" Christians, meaning OPC, have the indwelling Holy Spirit thus only they are the ultimate authority on eveything. When they rule the world most of us will not be franchised. Only them.

 

[reformedfan]

What i am interested in understanding is why isn't information gained from natural theology allowed to influence exegesis?

Natural theology can only confirm the existence of God, it is wholly insufficient to point one to their need for a relationship with Him only through Christ

Which seems to fly in the face of Roman's declaration that natural man does know truely some things about God through creation, apart from the Scriptures.

Yeah, about God. Not about the need to turn in repentance to Christ

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh, and just as an aside, I consider myself fully on the "conservative" side of the conservative-liberal split from the early part of this century. Rather than view the Scripture as a mere work of Man which may contain the message of God, rather than doubt what Scripture teaches and hold only to some loose moral and ethical guidelines, I hold to a very conservative line, for example, I believe the Scripture is God's Holy and inerrant message to us and I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. Politically, I am an arch-conservative. In morality and ethics, I am aslo on the far right, opposed to abortion and homosexuality. I have never taken a drink of alcohol or any drugs in my life (unless you conside cappucino a drug). I spend more time in my prayer closet than watching television.

Too often, YEC's tend to think that TE's are, by definition, liberal. It is VERY possible to a very strict conservative in every sense and still hold to a TE position.

Yeah - the irony of this situation is that if we didn't have the evolution issue Vance and me'd probably be hammering each other on other issues.

Good old YECs, promoting unity amongst everyone else

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the:

enemy of my enemy is my friend--

rule.

 

[Vance]

I think there is actually a certain degree of truth to this in group dynamics. In any group that is large enough, there develops fringe groups on the extremes. These, in addition to allowing those with radical or reactionary approaches to have a home, also serve to bind the majority in some ways. In Christianity, there were the mystics and hermits early on, then the extreme puritan sects later on. We still have the Amish and, more sinister, the Waco and Jim Jones-type groups out there. But a new situation arises when the fringe groups become just mainstream enough to begin to dominate, and re-define, the group. Coming from a Petecostal and charismatic background (again, my father was an Assembly of God minister through my entire formative years), and being intimately familiar with their history, this is in essence what has happened with Christianity in America. The Charismatic movement was very fringe and extreme when is started in the south and in Los Angeles in the early 1900's, but has now come to dominate and even re-define what Christianity IS here in the US. All very interesting.

 

[gluadys]

Natural theology can only confirm the existence of God, it is wholly insufficient to point one to their need for a relationship with Him only through Christ



Yeah, about God. Not about the need to turn in repentance to Christ

I grant that natural theology is insufficient to point us to Christ. But I am still puzzled as to why it can't be allowed to influence exegesis.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it be used in reference to Christ or his incarnation or resurrection or the atonement. These are beyond the parameters of natural theology.

But within the parameters of natural theology--what it can tell us about God and creation---why can it not influence exegesis? What is it there for if not to be used?

 

[Vance]

That reminds me of the Greek school of thought which believed that in order to understand something, you must contemplate it without reference to its actual physical characteristics. A group of wise philosophers were sitting around discussing the nature of a horse, debating whether it was like this, or like that. One young neophyte, obviously not sufficiently trained in the proper approach to "truth" said "Hey, there is a horse right outside, why don't we just go check it out!?".

They stoned him.

 

[Alchemist]

Although of course we must be careful not to concentrate too much on 'natural' things, but with the world around us, the truth of our faith becomes undefined, and the entire field of apologetics becomes useless. People object to the world being used to interpret scripture, but I think everyone uses it, else they would have no intellectual basis for their faith.

Why do I believe Jesus existed? Well, I believe he did because there are historical records (both secular and religious) documenting his life and death. Why do I believe that the Old Testament is true? Because 'worldly' history tells us that many of the events recorded (royal lineages, battles etc.) occured. Indeed, it is only through comparing what the Bible says to what the world is really like that makes us able to have faith in the accuracy and relevance of the Bible anyway. It is certainly an ironic scenario, but it is the truth; without the world to judge its accuracy, there is no way to tell that the Bible is anything more than a stack of paper, marked with ink glyphs.

To ask it a different way, why are you all Christians? I don't know, but I would guess that its probably not just because you think the Bible is a great read (although it definitely is! ). You are Christian because you have experienced the presense of God, and you know through observations of the world around you that the Bible and the teachings of the Church are not just a fairy-tale, but the truth. There is a mildly sarcastic man (who shall remain anonymous) in the open C&E forum, who has his 'Origins of Life view' in his profile set to 'Last-Tuesdayist'; that is, the position that the universe and everything in it was created last Tuesday, and that any memories of events since then were created at the same time; the events never really happened. Of course, many of you would laugh at this suggestion - "Where is the evidence?!". Indeed, it does seem ludicrous, but if there is any evidence that the Bible is not true, isn't our faith exactly the same?

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Internet Monk has a nice essay on inerrancy where he says:

Literary genre is the great ignored fact of the Bible that inerrantists seem unable to feel good about. They toss out "allegory" as a straw man, but if we were more accurate, the list would include EVERY kind of literary genre in the book: proverb, drama, journal, lament, imprecation, praise song, parable, didactic, story of origin, genealogy, poetry, apocalyptic, novella, and on and on and on. For some reason, the "truthfulness" of anything other than "flat" narration or eyewitness reporting really bugs a lot of inerrantists.
They remind me of people who, when asked by a four year old chide where babies come from, get out a college biology text or a video from human development class. Why? Well, allegory, story, poetry, etc. would just be abandoning the truth. (This is crazy!) So if I say the story of Adam and Eve is true, but it is prescientific, mythic, and more story than history, I'm a heretic. I will just say this once: I'm an English teacher, and you people get an F. Truth comes in all kinds of literary forms, and insisting that Genesis must produce a scientifically correct view of the universe is being brutally shallow in your appreciation of the literary nature of the material that makes up scripture.
from: http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/02/019857.html

since i've spent a significant amount of time following up the links in IM here's the rest:


from: http://www.internetmonk.com/bible.html
Scripture is inspired if God has, on some level and in some way, directed its production so that it says what he wants it to say. Human beings may conclude that the Bible is inspired if it demonstrates, in its content and its results, a unity of message that cannot be explained by merely human factors. Despite its humanity, despite its diversity, the Bible speaks to us a message that claims to be from God, and is coherent and clear in its claims. Such a view of the Bible grows as the Bible itself becomes aware of the conversation, and aware of the presence of God in the experience of the writers and their communities. But we should never claim that inspiration is a provable proposition. It is an assertion of faith, and that faith comes because of the presence of Jesus as the final Word of the inspired Conversation.

What I will write next is so important, that I cannot assert loudly enough the importance of understanding what I am claiming. The primary reason I believe the Bible is inspired is its presentation of Jesus. Only the activity of God in bringing a final Word into history and into the conversation can cause this conversation to have divine implications totally beyond the human realm of origin and explanation.



from: http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/02/019855.html
Now here is the crucial thing I have to say in this essay: In understanding the Bible, it is far more important that we understand, as best we can, the message and meaning of entire books, and the story told by those books, rather than just having a personal experience with individual verses. The study of Biblical books and the assessment of their story and message is the basic kind of Bible study that is needed in the church, and in preaching/teaching. This entails the study of smaller units of text, but the larger picture/story is the most valuable picture/narrative for the Christian life. I hope and pray nothing more than that my brothers in the ministry could make this connection: Understanding the Bible is understanding the books of the Bible, and how they relate together into one message.



and more to the topic his:
The real shock these days is that I am not a young earth creationist. Among my evangelical friends, there is a solid majority of CRI types. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind videos are more popular than HBO. If Ken Ham builds his creationist museum in Northern Kentucky, there will be a full-time bus route created to accommodate the field trips from our school. Hugh Ross is accursed among my brethren. Young earth creationism is the majority report, and even my children are on the other team from dad.

When my fellow faculty members hear me say I am not a young earth creationist, they literally shake their heads in astonished disbelief. They know I am not a liberal, and that I am conservative and orthodox in my Christianity. How can I, they muse, not take the Bible literally on matters like the age of the earth? How can I not see that young earth creationism is the God-honoring, Bible believing position? How did I ever get duped into believing- as they wrongly assume I do- the lies of the evolutionists?

Students who take me for Bible have generally already been through the creationist curriculum in other classes. Their reactions range from curious to incredulous. They are surprised that I, the minister, preacher and Bible teacher, do not approach Genesis in the same way their science teachers do. I explain that Christians have never required agreement on these issues, and that reasonable interpretation of Genesis allows a variety of positions on the hermeneutics of the early chapters of Genesis. I am always saddened that they see this disagreement as inappropriate, and I work hard to say that the Creationist position, while it is not my position, is completely acceptable as a way of interpreting the Bible. (I hope my co-workers reading this essay will know that I have never demeaned creationism in any way, though I am willing to critique it as a method of interpreting Genesis.)
...
This is a method of Biblical interpretation where a few questions will quickly determine where one stands. How old is the earth? Was there death before Adam? Do you believe in a world wide flood? Were there dinosaurs on the ark? Any number of these questions draw lines in the sand for the young earthers. I am sorry to say that I cannot think of any division in Christianity- Calvinist/Arminan, Catholic/Protestant, Pentecostal/Cessationist, Seeker/Traditional- where one side is more completely unlikely to appreciate the other position than this one.

Two issues particularly have bothered me. One is the young earth contention that there cannot be such a thing as theistic evolution. For the young earth movement, the teams seems to be young earthers versus atheistic evolutionists. But this is too simplistic. There are many theistic evolutionists in the diverse traditions of Christianity. We may disagree deeply on the evidence for macroevolution, particularly as it applies to human beings, or on various claim about the nature of the Bible, but to say that there is no such possible Christian position as theistic evolution is criminally inaccurate. (For example, the controversial life and work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin should be noted as a significant advocate of such a position. I did extensive research on the life of Charles Darwin during seminary, and Darwin himself was not an atheist, but a Deistic evolutionist.) Theistic evolution may have its problems, but in the opinion of serious confessional theologians, it does not deny anything essential to the Christian faith.
...
Literally Missing the Point

The young earth creationists believe that Genesis 1 is "literally" a description of creation. I do not. It is this simple disagreement that is the cornerstone of my objection. I believe that Genesis 1 is a prescientific description of Creation intended to accent how Yahweh's relationship with the world stands in stark contrast to the Gods of other cultures, most likely those of Babylon. Textual and linguistic evidence convinces me that this chapter was written to be used in a liturgical (worship) setting, with poetic rhythms and responses understood as part of the text. It tells who made the universe in a poetic and prescientific way. It is beautiful, inspired and true as God's Word.

Does it match up with scientific evidence? Who cares? Here I differ with Hugh Ross and the CRI writers. I do not believe science, history or archaeology of any kind establishes the truthfulness of the scripture in any way. Scripture is true by virtue of God speaking it. If God spoke poetry, or parable, or fiction or a prescientific description of creation, it is true without any verification by any human measurement whatsoever. The freedom of God in inspiration is not restricted to texts that can be interpreted "literally" by historical or scientific judges of other ages and cultures beyond the time the scriptures were written.
from: http://www.internetmonk.com/creation.html

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One of the really valuable things about the time i spend here is the continuing relationship i can have with people like vance and karl, for instance, who are more liberal in their analysis of Scripture then i am. (vance a little, karl a lot)

Even if i don't reply to their comments there is an underlying current of the question defending a more liberal vs a more conservative position on lots of the issues that present themselves here.

What has happened is that i have continued to work on an image that i created for my Calvin's Institutes class last summer. Image a pyramid, at the base is the text of Scripture, then we humans create this pyramid by induction, abstract, theorizing. Level by level we sum up the principles, we create at the top creeds and confessions that we hope capture the essential principles of the bottom layer. This is a very nature and essential human task, see an excellent book _The Arch of Knowledge_ for my pattern, only he did it with science.

Now what appears to be consistently happening in the more liberal-more conservative discussion is that liberal tends to be higher up the pyramid and conservative lower. To a Biblical conservative the infallibility of the Scriptures is at the words level, not necessarily at the thought or principle level, see the problems of modern translations for this idea writ large. To a classic Protestant religious liberal, the Scriptures are important as vehicles of God's inspiration, which is several levels off the bottom-word level. this is the meaning of Barthian contains the word of God, or of the liberal claim that the ideas are inspired but not the particular words that incarnate the thoughts.

What is really valuable in this picture is how figurative-literal fits into it and why oftentimes liberals and conservatives (like YECists and no-YECists here) are actually talking past each other rather than to each other. It is a problem of the level that each is standing on when they are talking. Conservatives tend in any conversation to be standing on a level below the more liberal. In the figurative-literal, the conservative is concentrating of the meaning of words and perhaps his hermeneutic of 'preference for the literal' when the liberal has already abstracted out the key principles of the passage and is in fact talking at a more abstract idea level.

An interesting way to following this up is the discussion of inerrancy and what does it mean. i've collected several interesting links over the last week that made this pyramid an interesting way to see how people are interacting, especially if you go back to my previous message and read it with this pyramid of abstraction in mind.

....

 

[Vance]

I agree completely, and it is interesting how labels get used. By most people in the Christian Church body, I would be considered a conservative fairly far to the right, but in other circles, I can be viewed as liberal in some areas. NT Wright was discussing this in a recent book or article. Within the Anglican church, he is an evangelical and considered very conservative, but to a fundamentalist, he might be considered a liberal.

And that idea of extracting out the essence is a useful idea. While I am much more conservative than many Christians, and insist that the Bible must be the core and is inerrant, I try to base my hermeneutics on acheiving the message of what God is telling me and not on the literary vehicle.

I would be very interested to hear what you have collected about the various views of "inerrancy".

 

[gluadys]

Internet Monk has a nice essay on inerrancy where he says:

Literary genre is the great ignored fact of the Bible that inerrantists seem unable to feel good about. They toss out "allegory" as a straw man, but if we were more accurate, the list would include EVERY kind of literary genre in the book: proverb, drama, journal, lament, imprecation, praise song, parable, didactic, story of origin, genealogy, poetry, apocalyptic, novella, and on and on and on. For some reason, the "truthfulness" of anything other than "flat" narration or eyewitness reporting really bugs a lot of inerrantists.
They remind me of people who, when asked by a four year old chide where babies come from, get out a college biology text or a video from human development class. Why? Well, allegory, story, poetry, etc. would just be abandoning the truth. (This is crazy!) So if I say the story of Adam and Eve is true, but it is prescientific, mythic, and more story than history, I'm a heretic. I will just say this once: I'm an English teacher, and you people get an F. Truth comes in all kinds of literary forms, and insisting that Genesis must produce a scientifically correct view of the universe is being brutally shallow in your appreciation of the literary nature of the material that makes up scripture.
from: http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/02/019857.html

RE, the bolded section: