Some thoughts on the Bible, History and Correspondence
As people who take the Bible to be “the only rule for faith and practice,” we must aver from the traditions of men, especially when such traditions are claimed to be of hermeneutic necessity.
Allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible—“the analogy of faith” as it is called, has always been the rudimentary approach of orthodox believers. The alternative is the effective denial of the Christian religion. Afterall, to deny the preeminence of God’s word in the interpretation thereof is to condemn the Holy Writ to the ravages of those who are by nature its enemies. If Christians submit the Revelation of God in any way to the analyses of faithless men and their myriad disciplines, they truly “cast pearls before swine.”
Though Christianity may be appropriately called an “historical religion,” (as the incarnation necessitates) we do not—no, cannot interpret the Bible through history. Any anthropological informing of the text is the pursuit of anthropocentric religion. It not only denies the fallen status of man’s faculties but also presupposes the autonomous omniscience of man via his ability to procure perfectly and exhaustively the “hidden knowledge” by which he will inform an insufficient bible. If the word eisegesis means anything at all, it is surely typified by such an approach.
It makes little difference whether the subjection of the text to external data is done maliciously or with a seeming devotion to God, both are in their own measure emissaries of foreign religion and foreign gods. The presumption of man that he might interpret the Bible through the ever vacillating theories of the academy, personal experience or psychological perspectives—is ultimately precipitated by certain philosophical pre-commitments. These pre-commitments are religious in nature. Their primordial origins are found under the boughs of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—it is the assertion that man has unhindered access to truth outside of divine revelation. If such a proposition was invalid for our un-fallen forbearers, how much more so for us!
So what then is the true nature of correspondence between the Scripture and History? In what economy do they intersect and have interpretive significance one to another? We do not reckon all historical witness as luciferian—the Bible affirms History. So too does the Bible condemn all histories when they are presumed to have any interpretive jurisdiction over or even testimonial equivalence to God’s word. In such cases the Bible refers to all such scholarship as “traditions of men… Jewish fables… myths… vain philosophies… and lies.” That is to say that no matter what the relative truth value of any bit of data, it is reckoned as false when employed in inappropriate ways.
The knowledge that Homer wrote the Odyssey may be true but such knowledge is un-germane to the interpretation of Scripture. Infact, if we ascribe any equivalence of authority between the Scripture and other historical writings or subsequent analysis, we deny the uniqueness of Special Revelation. And if we deny the unique authority of God’s word over all other witnesses, we as presuppositionalists recognize the immediate consequence to be the abandonment of all epistemic certainty. By that I mean to say that we take knowledge as possible and justifiable only if the Special Revelation of God is what it claims itself to be—uniquely authoritative. Absent this axiom, we have no justifiable basis for belief in the autograph of the Odyssey or any other historical work. That means that the equivalence of para-scriptural sources with the Bible entails (even if inadvertently) the denial of said sources. If Sola Scriptura and Analogia de Fides are denied there would be no basis for certainty in any outside sources. Any mulling of the Bible’s claim to unique authority is simultaneously the undermining of all external data as well. That means that any affirmation of para-biblical sources toward the interpretation of scripture is not only the denial of Scripture but also of said sources.
If Homer’s authorship were said to in some way inform our interpretation of the Bible, Homer’s authorship is in this sense rendered “traditions of men… Jewish fables… myths… vain philosophies… and lies.”
The true interrelation of the Bible and History is simply the same as the Bible’s relation with every other category of knowledge—all are subject to His word. Any other position cannot be reconciled to scripture or even to historical orthodoxy for that matter. The Christian Faith acknowledges Scripture alone as the lens through which all creation must be surveyed. Those who take issue with this approach are constrained to a limited field of alternatives, infact just one—the concept that General Revelation trumps Special Revelation. Such declension subjects God’s propositionally revealed truth to the vagaries of every ism dreamt by men. It is acquiescence to the ego and thereby, nature-worship. The antithesis is Paganism.
Allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible—“the analogy of faith” as it is called, has always been the rudimentary approach of orthodox believers. The alternative is the effective denial of the Christian religion. Afterall, to deny the preeminence of God’s word in the interpretation thereof is to condemn the Holy Writ to the ravages of those who are by nature its enemies. If Christians submit the Revelation of God in any way to the analyses of faithless men and their myriad disciplines, they truly “cast pearls before swine.”
Though Christianity may be appropriately called an “historical religion,” (as the incarnation necessitates) we do not—no, cannot interpret the Bible through history. Any anthropological informing of the text is the pursuit of anthropocentric religion. It not only denies the fallen status of man’s faculties but also presupposes the autonomous omniscience of man via his ability to procure perfectly and exhaustively the “hidden knowledge” by which he will inform an insufficient bible. If the word eisegesis means anything at all, it is surely typified by such an approach.
It makes little difference whether the subjection of the text to external data is done maliciously or with a seeming devotion to God, both are in their own measure emissaries of foreign religion and foreign gods. The presumption of man that he might interpret the Bible through the ever vacillating theories of the academy, personal experience or psychological perspectives—is ultimately precipitated by certain philosophical pre-commitments. These pre-commitments are religious in nature. Their primordial origins are found under the boughs of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—it is the assertion that man has unhindered access to truth outside of divine revelation. If such a proposition was invalid for our un-fallen forbearers, how much more so for us!
So what then is the true nature of correspondence between the Scripture and History? In what economy do they intersect and have interpretive significance one to another? We do not reckon all historical witness as luciferian—the Bible affirms History. So too does the Bible condemn all histories when they are presumed to have any interpretive jurisdiction over or even testimonial equivalence to God’s word. In such cases the Bible refers to all such scholarship as “traditions of men… Jewish fables… myths… vain philosophies… and lies.” That is to say that no matter what the relative truth value of any bit of data, it is reckoned as false when employed in inappropriate ways.
The knowledge that Homer wrote the Odyssey may be true but such knowledge is un-germane to the interpretation of Scripture. Infact, if we ascribe any equivalence of authority between the Scripture and other historical writings or subsequent analysis, we deny the uniqueness of Special Revelation. And if we deny the unique authority of God’s word over all other witnesses, we as presuppositionalists recognize the immediate consequence to be the abandonment of all epistemic certainty. By that I mean to say that we take knowledge as possible and justifiable only if the Special Revelation of God is what it claims itself to be—uniquely authoritative. Absent this axiom, we have no justifiable basis for belief in the autograph of the Odyssey or any other historical work. That means that the equivalence of para-scriptural sources with the Bible entails (even if inadvertently) the denial of said sources. If Sola Scriptura and Analogia de Fides are denied there would be no basis for certainty in any outside sources. Any mulling of the Bible’s claim to unique authority is simultaneously the undermining of all external data as well. That means that any affirmation of para-biblical sources toward the interpretation of scripture is not only the denial of Scripture but also of said sources.
If Homer’s authorship were said to in some way inform our interpretation of the Bible, Homer’s authorship is in this sense rendered “traditions of men… Jewish fables… myths… vain philosophies… and lies.”
The true interrelation of the Bible and History is simply the same as the Bible’s relation with every other category of knowledge—all are subject to His word. Any other position cannot be reconciled to scripture or even to historical orthodoxy for that matter. The Christian Faith acknowledges Scripture alone as the lens through which all creation must be surveyed. Those who take issue with this approach are constrained to a limited field of alternatives, infact just one—the concept that General Revelation trumps Special Revelation. Such declension subjects God’s propositionally revealed truth to the vagaries of every ism dreamt by men. It is acquiescence to the ego and thereby, nature-worship. The antithesis is Paganism.
posted by Ehud would | 11/28/2006 10:52:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home