Atheists, Scripture, and Authority

I recently came across an article entitled Using the Bible Against Christians: Sola Scriptura Atheism. The article can be read here. Part of the argument seems to be that atheists, secularists and liberals, when using biblical passages to refute or embarrass conservative (ie., orthodox) Christianity, are merely following the idea behind sola scriptura. One example of this from the article:

What struck me about all this is that these atheists and various other assorted anti-Christians were reading the Bible essentially as sola scriptura fundamentalists. In essence, they presume to claim that their own reading of the Bible is the only possible one, that their reading is also quite obvious (perspicuity), and that the Bible is the sole basis for Christian doctrine, life and legitimacy. If the Bible can be made unpalatable even to Christians, then it just shows that the whole Christian enterprise is bunk.

While it's true there are liberals, secularists and atheists who grab passages of scripture and use them against Christians, to make the claim that they are coming from a sola scriptura mindset is fallacious for one simple reason: their basis of authority. The foundational principle of sola scriptura is that scripture, as God's revealed word, is the final authority. An atheist cannot possibly say that God's word has authority without being inconsistent with their position, while secularists and liberals will find their personal opinions at odds with the authority of God's word.

The author themselves admit this when they say: "I don’t expect an atheist or any other non-Christian to believe what the Bible says to be true." If the atheist does not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the sole infallible authority over their spiritual lives, then you can't say that they are coming from a sola scriptura mindset. That would be like saying my use of the Quran to respond to Islam in the negative somehow shows I believe the Quran to be divine. The author likewise admits that, rather than seeing how scripture interprets various topics, non-Christians are "looking for 'gotchas' in the Bible to throw in Christians' faces." The author even makes sound points, such as explaining to non-Christians that "not everything depicted in the Bible is commanded by God, not everything allowed by God is endorsed by God, and not everything commanded by God is meant to become an absolute, eternal rule."

His being aware of all this, how then can the author presume that atheists, secularists and liberals are reading the Bible "with a sola scriptura hermeneutic"?

What appears to be occurring here is, as often happens with sola scriptura, is a misunderstanding of what the doctrine truly is. This is especially seen when the author suggests the mindset is "the Bible’s meaning is obvious to anyone who just happens to pick it up and read it for any reason" and "that your mental context is the only needed context for proper comprehension." The tone throughout out the article is not one of sola scriptura, but what many have nicknamed "solo scriptura," or even "scripture isolated." Any one who has done a fair (and I do emphasize fair) study on the subject knows this isn't the case. While it's true that not every passage in scripture is readily understandable to the average person, it was never contrary to sola scriptura for that person to engage in careful study, examination, and research into those troubling passages of scripture. Even the author confesses that many of the so-called troubling verses used by atheists and others can be understood when seen in their context. We must confess, then, that in many of these passages where there seems to be a disagreement on interpretation, that there is indeed a correct interpretation. If a man is misinterpreting and mishandling scripture - and this can be clearly demonstrated - then the conflict is not on the matter of sola scriptura's integrity, but on the person themselves.

The author admits this at the end with "I believe that there is a true meaning to the Bible," but submits himself to "the authority of a particular interpretive community that was constituted in the preaching of the men who wrote it" - meaning, in this case, to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Herein lies a dilemma: when a person says they appeal to the interpretation of an ecclesiastical authority, does this authority (by this meaning any church authority) preach contrary to, or in accordance with, God's word? Does it interpret what scripture says, or in spite of what scripture says? That is, does it read into God's word what it prefers to see, or what so-and-so commentator has said, even if such a conclusion clearly contradicts what the verses tell us? If this is the case, then you are following what one might call sola ecclesia, and you are submitting yourself to the authority of the church and not God's word. I might add, if you find that your ecclesiastical body is turning away from scripture on many important matters of faith - in particularly the gospel - you should depart. Not from the universal church, mind you, but from that individual ecclesiastical body.

If, however, none of this is an issue, then I might say congratulations, as you are, in fact, following sola scriptura.

Some Thoughts on Bible Arcing

I've been into Bible Arcing for awhile, now. I have to admit that it is a great tool for discovering and outlining the flow of the text. It forces you to slow down and really think about what the text is saying–and when you do that, you are forced to interpret the text in a whole new meaning.

At the end of this post, I have embedded an arc I did some time ago on Hebrews 11:8-19. Don't become confused by all the letters and abbreviations. Fortunately, Bible Arc has a series of video tutorials that take you step-by-step through the arcing process. They are very helpful in introducing the student to arcing and really lay the groundwork for becoming competent at this particular discipline.

However, that is not what this post is entirely about. As much as I love arcing I think there are some precautions that need to be brought up lest the beginning arcer fall into some of these mindsets. Keep in mind that this is not a negative review of arcing but rather an admonition to those who are seriously considering learning how to arc.

1. Arcing should not be the 'be-all-end-all' to the study of your passage. Arcing takes work! It takes thought, reasoning, and diligent observation, and those who begin to learn it will quickly find this out. As human nature would have it, when we become tired we wish to to stop the job, and, if it looks good, we call it "finished."  This should never be the case with arcing. With some passages, you may find yourself spending two to  three days, or even more, discovering the proper relationships between each of your propositions. My fear is that those who spend a great deal of time arcing, when finished, will walk away from the passage thinking that all information from said passage is exhausted. This could be further from the truth. Arcing is simply one, if not the first step, in your study. Those familiar with the Inductive approach to Bible study know that there are three steps: observation, interpretation, and application. Arcing is at that top of the chain–observation! We would do well to keep this in mind as we begin the arcing process. At this point we are just beginning to see how the text "fits" together. Simply observing the flow of the text does not mean we have done all we can do to complete our study. 
2. Arcing should never replace in depth word studies. Bible Arc provides a full parsing feature which makes it handy if you're working with the Hebrew and Greek texts. This could be a temptation for some to avoid doing any further word study. Greek and Hebrew words often carry a variety and shade of meanings depending on the context. Concreting a singular meaning based on one usage of the word almost always leads to mis-interpretation of the text and even downright heresy! We've all seen the results of the Rob Bell incident and his double standard usage of the word αιωνιος in Matthew 25. Of course, Bell's interpretation goes well beyond the scope of a lack of study and more of a "willful blindness."
   




3. Arcing should not replace proper exegesis. Because the site itself states that it is "graphical exegesis" one may be tempted again to abandon the process that often comes with the study of God's Word. How many of us would not want to produce an arc of a particular passage and then boast that we have produced an exegesis of it and not have to go through all the laborious work that is involved in the process. But let's face it–exegesis is hard work and there is no shortcut or easy way to do it. You just have to dig in and commit to not walk away from a passage until you have reached the level where you are unable to any further with your own ability. And even after that, we should be willing to seek out someone who may have a better grasp of the passage to aid our own understanding.
   

Those are my thoughts on the subject of arcing. Just to reiterate, I am certainly not trying to scare anyone away from arcing, but I am simply realizing some of the pitfalls that we may find ourselves falling into. With that said, look at the sample arc below, then go to Bible Arc.com and watch the videos. After that, happy arcing!



City of God -

The Smallest Things in Life Bring the Greatest Joy!

As a father I often wonder about the impact I'm having on my children; not that I don't think I'm having an impact but what kind of impact? I not only see my own sin and depravity but also the failures and shortcomings of my role as spiritual leader of my family. One thing I try to to be consistent in is my personal Bible study. I enjoy dissecting sentences and figuring out the relationships between them. I truly enjoy digging thoroughly into the original languages (as far as my ability takes me) and mining those rare jewels. But what does all this have to do with being a father? Funny you should ask ;) Apparently, my 9 year old son, Eliab, had been watching. Today after church he came to me and said, "Dad, could you teach me to study the Bible so I can do my own studies.?" I was a little stunned by this request but I immediately said a bit, "YES!" When we got home I got some paper and wrote down some basic questions (on a 9 year old level) for him to answer. He wanted to read about Balaam's donkey so I opened the Bible to Numbers 22 and left him alone for a bit to read and ponder the chapter. The following picture is what he did on his own. It's a little fuzzy but you should be able to make out the majority of it. Don't expect any deep theological thoughts and keep in mind that he is very much left-handed like his dad which means that he writes some of his letters and numbers backwards.

My Son, Eliab