The Bible and Its Importance - digg this
Having an interesting discussion at Letters From Kamp Krusty regarding Bibliolatry or turning the Bible into an idol.
I certainly believe it's possible, but I also believe that it's possible to go the other way. I personally believe that the Bible is the closed revelation of God. As a good Presbyterian I posted the following from the Westminster Confession.
Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church; and afterward—for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world—to commit this revelation wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scripture is most necessary, God's former ways of revealing his will to his people having ceased.
I did so in part to get a feel for what the folks in the thread thought of it. Both Brant, kamp kounselor, and Steve, from the excellent Theological Musings Blog take issue with that notion and propose that the WCF is claiming more about the Bible than the Bible does about itself. So let's pick this paragraph apart and see if I can find scriptural support for it. This is more than even the writers of the confession did so wish me luck.
If you enjoyed this entry subscribe to this blog by email or feed reader"Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation."
Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I don't think that "general revelation" or the idea that God's creation is sufficient to reveal God's existence is in dispute in Christian circles.
"Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church;"
This is Heb 1:1 pretty much verbatim.
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways."
And it seems that both Brant and Steve agree with this. Now it's going to get a bit sticky and it's here that we part ways apparently. So it's here that I need to back up the WCF with scripture.
"and afterward—for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world—to commit this revelation wholly to writing."
So this tries to explain why God commited his revelation wholly to writing. Did God commit his revelation wholly to writing? I mean no one can argue that historically God used a variety of means to speak to his people, though most of those where certainly put down in writing. According to Paul (Rom. 15:4) "everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope". Of course it's evident to me that he was talking about the OT, the New Testament not having been canonized or in the case of some of Paul's letters even written yet. And Paul also speaks of a number of things having been revealed to him. Putting aside the committing of the whole of revelation to writing or perhaps rather to expand on it we get to this:
"Therefore the Holy Scripture is most necessary, God's former ways of revealing his will to his people having ceased."
Because if there is a "whole of revelation" that implies as this statement says outright that there is no more revelation to be had. So, does any author in the Bible claim that all of God's revelation will be put down in words and will at some point cease? There are certainly quite a few Christians, myself included who are inclined to believe so. Does the Bible teach that though?
MORE TO COME
Total Number of Comments: 4
Scott,
I really appreciate your tone and spirit in all of this. I look forward to engaging in some (what will hopefully be) fruitful dialogue about this.
I'm looking forward to your thoughts and interacting with them. I'll let you post some more of your thoughts, and then will likely write a responding post on my blog if you're cool with that.
This should be interesting and challenging for both of us. Thanks for being game for it! :)
steve :)
Well I figure there's little sense in being anything other than as humble as you can be when talking about stuff like this. I don't believe that any of us can get it all exactly right and the more folks that remember that then the more unity we're likely to have. I can think of some fire breathing brethren whom I love dearly that would do well to remember that.
Hopefully I'll get some more up today.
"Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse..."
How positively deistic of them!
"...yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation."
Oh, never mind ;)
"Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church"
If God is, indeed, good, wise, and powerful as providence suggests, then why are God's special revelations so unconvincing and vague? I mean Christianity only makes up 1/3 of the World's current population. Furthermore Christians cannot agree on what God was trying to reveal in the Bible. Creation, on the other hand is utterly convincing, as stated in the Westminster Confession. About 90% of the current World's population believe in some sort of Creator, but there is no majority consensus about the nature of God.
I know, truth is not a popularity contest. Majorities have been wrong before (see GWB), but based on the Christian claims about God, one would think that He'd be more convincing in his 'whole of revelation'.
Actually since I'm pretty convinced by his revelations and don't find them all that vague (difficult sometimes, but that's different) perhaps I'm not the best person to ask? And Christianity explains one possible reason. The things that being a Christian leads you to believe (that you're not inherently "good", that you will ultimately be judged and found wanting, etc) are things that some folk are strongly disinclined to believe. And while you and I believe that creation itself is pretty good evidence of some sort of god there are certainly those that disagree.