Part 1 of 4 on The Reliability of the Old and New Testaments
“In God We Trust” has been earnestly inscribed on the walls of many courts in our country, yet not without challenge. Many scholars have debated whether our founders were Christians, Deists, or something else. Most acknowledge that Judeo-Christian principles lay at the root of the founding of the United States. However, for an entire society to declare they “trust God”, well, that would be remarkable.
While the motivations of those long gone is fascinating, it is the present day which I am interested in. Further, rather than ask this question of those who deny or are ambivalent about God, I am most interested in the part of the population to which I belong: those who proclaim ourselves to be followers of Jesus. What does it mean for us to trust God?
Proverbs 3:5-6 is a popular text for this area. How do we live out this text? For Christians to trust God, in an objective and repeatable manner, means we trust an unchanging source of information about God—for Christians that is the Holy Book. Yes we have teachers and pastors, but they must always be grounded in Scripture.
This four-part series is designed for us to take in information, in manageable bites, about not only our trust of God, but specifically staying grounded in His Word:
· Part One: describes the dilemma many Christians find themselves in regards God’s Word.
· Part Two: highlights the range options that have been used inside the Church in an effort to stay grounded.
· Part Three: looks at the forces from outside the Church that push and pull at God’s Word.
· Part Four: suggests the position we as Christ’s followers must hold to.
Today, many Christians want to say we believe in the Bible, but our pesky friends love to challenge us—often, for example, turning to Genesis 1. We look for a way to respond, while simultaneously not wanting to be judged as simpletons, or worse.
Yet, when a follower of Jesus sees something so obviously in violation of God’s Word, and raises their hand and says, “But wait that is against Scripture”, they are met with outright contempt, or offered from another part of the church reasoning that seems, in essence, to twist Scripture to fit the desired answer.
Either response leaves us “a bit stymied”. What do we do?
In part 4 we answer this question. First however, we need to examine how this question has been handled in the past. In part 2 we will look at how the church has sought to answer it, specifically by defending the reliability of the Bible.
To trust the Holy Book implicitly means you believe the Old and New Testament to be reliable.
Using the word “reliability” brings an interesting depth to our discussion. Explicitly listing out both testaments brings to the front of the discussion, and for many the challenge of, the Old Testament.
In Part 2 we will take a look at the range of options that have been used by the church in dealing with this situation. It is more than the average Christian that has wrestled.
Why take such a look? A few reasons. First, we may identify some efforts, that at first seemed really good ideas, only to run off the road. Second, we will gain a sense of the level of effort that the Church as spent over the centuries.
This is not a new problem for those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For centuries highly skilled theologians, as well as the average person who loves Jesus, have wrestled with this situation. Many approaches and methods have been used over the centuries. Let’s take one as an example.
In one period, the late 1500’s, there has been this analogy of a three-legged stool: Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. Now in our 20th century we’ve added a fourth leg: Experience.
[At this point some Christians will say, “It is Sola Scriptura—Only Scripture”.
To which I say great! But let me be a jerk for a minute. If I look at us and our behavior, is that how we are all really living? Are we living by “only Scripture”? I think many in the church use reason, and/or experience, and/or even tradition (meaning how others in the past interpreted certain portions) to navigate this situation.]
Let me go back to this three-legged stool analogy for a moment. Not to highlight a solution, but to share an observation. For example, as we evaluate God’s Word, are these “three legs” of equal weight and authority?
I come from a tradition where a wise man’s quote was captured and twisted. His name: Richard Hooker. People would twist his words and talk about a balanced three-legged stool.
Yet here is what he exactly said: “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 5,8,2).”
The quote clearly shows that Scripture is the first and main player.
In fact, it is less a balanced stool, and more a sequential thought process.
· Step One, is Scripture clear? If Yes, then Stop! Give Scripture the credit and obey it. No further effort to understand is needed.
· Step Two, if Scripture is not clear, then move onto Reason. Does this mean we are using Reason to overrule Scripture? No, Scripture was either silent or unclear. How many times have we heard, or in fact ourselves, rationalized and reasoned our ways to disobedience?
· Step Three, if Scripture is not clear, and we cannot reason a solution that does not contradict other parts of Scripture, then what have our forebears thought and done? (i.e., Tradition)
For the purpose of limiting the length of this post, let me simply ask, “Can we see in this one example from history how we have allowed Tradition, and then Reason, and now Experience to often times replace Scripture as Step One.
In the coming posts, we will walk a bit more through this situation, concluding with (I pray) a way forward.