In my previous post, “The Bible wasn’t written to you” I was arguing that in order to understand what the Bible means to us we must first understand what it meant to them, that is, the original recipients of the Law, the gospels, epistles, etc. If a message has any objective truth at all it must be true in context. Sure, you can use out-of-context information any way you want, and we often do. But for people who hold the Bible as a sacred text, as the inspired Word of God, we must use it with care. Why? Because there are many others out there that are using the Word of God to promote a version of the truth that is miles away from the original author’s intended message. Contextual Bible study is a guard against that.
But Bible study is hard. It makes my head hurt. I don’t have time to do all that study. And anyhow, the Holy Spirit will help me to understand the Word. Isn’t that in the Bible somewhere? Yes, the Holy Spirit does have a role in helping us understand the Word of God, but it isn’t a substitute for study. Paul instructs Timothy several times to be a diligent student of the Bible. And he contrasts that dedication to study with others “who have wandered away from the truth.”
I don’t want to minimize the “inner voice of the Spirit” that speaks to us as believers but I do want to warn against the misuse of phrases like “The Holy Spirit told me.” If the Holy Spirit told you something that contradicts the written word of God, then you’re listening to another spirit. If the Holy Spirit has told you something new that has been completely absent from the accepted understanding of Christians for 2,000 years, then beware. If the Holy Spirit has told you something that benefits you personally, or results in you participating in sinful, or “borderline” activities, you might want to think again about which spirit is really speaking. “The Holy Spirit told me” is often a logical fallacy that we use as an appeal to authority. The Theopedia article on Illumination of the Holy Spirit provides links to several articles on this topic and several of them explain this topic far better than I could.
As I consider Paul’s writings, it seems to me that he was constantly battling against personal inspiration and insisting on the inspiration of the written Scriptures. I think it is because he won that battle that Christianity is a religion based on a book rather than an atomized dispersion of religious fanatics hearing the voice of God in their heads.
Scriptures cited: 2 Tim. 2:17-18
Another excellent post from you, Lingamish!
Another variant of this theme is “My interpretation of this Bible verse trumps yours.” It can be related to “My Holy Spirit trumps your Holy Spirit.”
In almost every church debate there is a claim that *my*/*our* interpretation of the Bible is the truth, while yours is not.
Somehow we need to understand that the Bible contains objective truth. It is truly God’s Word. But our understanding of it is fallible. So we need to be humble in how we speak about those with whom we disagree over interpretations of the Bible.
I hope many get to read this post of yours.
Thank you, Wayne. I also used that word “humble” in my original post in this series in talking about our approach to studying the Scriptures. And your comment that “the Bible contains objective truth … but our understanding is fallible” is just the perspective we need.
This post has been removed by the author.
Well said. My thesis is on the misuse of the New Testament by a fourth century bishop in order to manipulate his readers and isolate his enemies. When we look at what he wrote, most of us cannot imagine how anyone bought into what he was saying.
In reality, the answer is simple, they were mislead for the same reason that we often are: because they wanted to believe in what he was saying because it made them better than the “heretics.”
Interesting thesis, Ty. I look forward to hearing more about it. How much of it was people wanting to believe and how much was their not having another alternative? In the 4th century I can imagine the concept of “hierarchy,” that is a priest/bishop being at the top, was deeply ingrained in the society. Today, a bishop/blogger has to contend with a million simultaneous voices offering alternative viewpoints. We’re still mislead but that might have more to do with a need to maintain our allegiance to our particular group. I can imagine that “group identity” exerted a huge amount of influence on individual decision making back then, that is a strong desire not to be associated with whatever the authorities asserted was “heresy.”
Among the laity, your assessment is surely correct: they had little choice. Among those in the upper divisions of the hierarchy, however, where heresies and heresy hunting both had their geneses, choices seem to have been made on the basis of political expediency (in the case of prior heretics) and the desire to be on the “right” side, and thus, identifying themselves as orthodox, the desire to hear that their choice gave them a level of superiority (as above) in the case of the undecided or “orthodox” believers.
Another reason for this rugged individualism approach that you have described is a wrong understanding of Sola Scriptura: the Reformers’ unerstanding of this teaching is the bible alone as ultimate authority, not the bible without tradition or church.
The Reformers certainly saw tradition and the church as subservient to the bible, but there was still a place for tradition in the creeds and the church had a role in the teachers God gives us to understand his Word.
The bible alone can all too easily become my interpretation of the bible alone is the sole authority.
I blogged about Keith Mathison’s excellent article on this in After Darkness, Light a few days ago.
http://themusickeplace.blogspot.com/
I agree with your statement that in order to undestand what the Bible means to us we must first understand what it mean to them. That is something that we who study literature often forget. I used to love to watch inspiration programs on TV but the more I read my Bible the more difficult it is to watch those programs. The subtle manipulation of Biblical truths is painful. I am no Biblical scholar but it is frightening to see what “truths” are out there.
ty,
Don’t you think those terms “orthodox” and “heretic” are rich with implication? A “heretic” is merely someone with a differing viewpoint but without the political backing of the dominant organization. I’m orthodox if the group backs me up and a heretic if they don’t.
David,
I love that term “rugged individualism.” It is a term that used to describe America, but I think Aussies have maintained that spirit better than we have. And in theological terms you are “spot on” regarding our neglect of tradition.
Keep up the good blogging!