In a series of excellent posts, Mike Heiser has sought to come up with a definition of Scripture that conforms to the realia of the biblical text as we currently understand them. I share his essential conclusions and would love to see Christian scholars everywhere grasp the points Mike makes, and subscribe to his essential conclusions. This post is in reply to Mike’s latest.
In reply to Mike’s most basic question:
absolutely, I could sign off on his Bellingham Statement as I revised it
without a single butterfly in my stomach.
I can’t say the same about the Chicago
Statement, though I could also sign that statement, as do many ETSers, with
qualms attached.
I can’t say the same about the doctrine of
Scripture as currently articulated by the Catholic Church or by Eastern
Orthodoxy, even though I think those traditions have much to teach evangelicals
about a healthy relationship between Scripture and tradition. In particular, I
think it is very helpful to be a creedal church, in the sense of formulating a regula
fidei or confession of faith itself derived from Scripture which serves as a guide to reading Scripture and determining how one reads Scripture in light of Scripture in view of
establishing faith and practice.
At the same time, Scripture in a creedal
setting must also remain norma normans, the norm which norms all other
norms, whereas “rules of faith” such as the Nicene Creed and the Augsburg
Confession must remain norma normata, norms normed by Scripture.
I take back my suggestion that Mike has a
lower view of Scripture than I do. I was just making conversation
blogging-style, as I hope he guessed. I’m not sure Mike and I have
differences of substance with respect to the particular aspects of a doctrine
of Scripture under discussion, though we clearly have differences of rhetorical
strategy. Mike says:
“What I back away from is the idea that God *gave*
the writers each word.”
My instinctive response: no, you don’t. You
just back away from the idea that God gave the writers each word *through
dictation.*
I don’t see Mike backing away from the
idea that God gave the writers each word through a providential combination of
factors he has identified with care: through the writers’ “abilities, education,
styles, worldview, backgrounds, and idiosyncrasies,” in conjunction with, or
not, a point-in-time divine encounter.
I don’t see Mike backing away from the
idea that God gave the writers each word and the writers each word to us as
they edited, added to, deleted from, rearranged and repurposed what earlier
writers had written - including writers whose work is also part of Scripture as
we have received it in (relatively) unchanged form.
In short, I think we both intend to affirm verbal inspiration, but we choose slightly different ways of expressing it.
Speaking of intentions. When it comes to
Scripture, the end textual product, how do the writers’ intentions and those of
God line up? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it is standard and correct
teaching that they are not identical.
That is, Jewish and Christian believers hold
that God intended that the words of Scripture have fulfillments and
repurposings that were beyond the intent of the writers themselves.
However, it does appear that Mike backs away
from the language of divine intention with respect to the wording and therefore
the content of Scripture.
I have reservations about the move – though I
am absolutely fine with his alternative wording: the words of Scripture “met
with God’s final approval,” even if God did not (per Mike) intend those words. (Perhaps I have misunderstood here.) I
remain convinced that it is standard and correct teaching that:
Instilling truth about Himself and His
works into the hearts and minds of the scriptural writers prepared them to
write the very words God intended they write, those words and no others.
It gets worse. I would locate God’s intentions in
history and in eternity in the sense that God determined from all
eternity to live out the relationships he would have with his creatures in
history and in sovereign freedom nonetheless. In my view, the making of
Scripture is part and parcel of those relationships, and follows that script as
well. Which makes me a Calvinist, albeit a reconstructed one, whatever Mike may
say. I realize that calling oneself a Calvinist is like comparing oneself to the Grinch who stole Christmas, but there it is.
In short, whereas I wish to describe God as
the Alpha and Omega of Scripture no less than of everything else that comes to
pass in history, I realize that the notion of divine intention goes to
determination which goes to predetermination. (Digression alert)
And that is a problem. Can an all-powerful,
all-knowing God intend anything without predetermining everything?
No he cannot, unless he ties one hand behind his
back and does not allow what he knows will happen in the future to predetermine
everything he does in the present. I have no idea why this point of logic is
not brought up more often.
Put another way, an all-powerful, all-knowing
God cannot intend anything without predetermining everything unless
that same God is all-loving. In that case, neither divine pre-determination, nor
co-determination, nor post-determination are absolute, but together ensure,
ex hypothesi, a painful but ultimately satisfactory result.
At least, that is my working hypothesis with
respect to parental determination of my children’s choices, though of course
the analogy is limited, since my parental power, knowledge, and love are far
from total. But here is one piece of the analogy that works: like God,
since I am a loving parent, I predetermine that I will not completely determine,
for example, my son Giovanni’s choice with respect to where to go to
university. I’m fully aware that I have predetermined it in some sense,
co-determine it now, and may very well post-determine it in the future. So far,
in this season of waiting for high school seniors, he has been admitted to
the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Tulane University, and is waiting to
hear from Notre Dame, Wheaton, Northwestern, Duke, and the University of
Chicago. It’s already embarrassing to me to think about how much I determined,
mostly in indirect ways, what universities he applied to in the first place.
Hopefully the above digression clarifies why
I’m fine with the language of divine intention for whatever comes to pass in
history, though I also wish to affirm that close to all of what comes to
pass in history is not God’s will in an undiluted sense.
With respect to Scripture, however, I think
it is adequate to the realia of the text to affirm that its contents and
wording conform to God’s intentions in an undiluted sense. I admit such an
affirmation has the smell of macho bravado about it. I stand by it just the
same.
Now the ball is back in Mike’s court. In any
case, I’m happy to subscribe to the Bellingham Statement as I revised it with
or without the language of divine intention.
Thanks for this dialogue with Mike, John. I've enjoyed watching from the sidelines on this one.
It really brings me back to my Systematic Theology classes at Moody, and in particular, my frustrating with my professor in our discussions of the Chicago Statement in comparison with Fuller's statement on their website.
Between you, Mike, and Tilling's discussions of inspiration and inerrancy, I'm much more comfortable with the subject than I have been for some time.
Posted by: Mike Aubrey | February 10, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Mike,
I'm pleased to hear that. When it comes to this topic, you are an example of the implied reader I have in mind.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 10, 2009 at 04:24 PM
"Can an all-powerful, all-knowing God intend anything without predetermining everything? No he cannot."
I would like to hear more of what you have to say about this since I am utterly unconvinced by your short explanation above. I have not been reading your blog long enough to know which theological systems you adopt and which you avoid. Would your argument hold up in an open theistic worldview? Maybe I don't see the merit of your claim because I am examining it against the background of my own open theistic leanings?
Posted by: Joseph Kelly | February 10, 2009 at 05:21 PM
Joseph,
I'm rather traditional in my theological leanings, but try to remain open to new insights. If you do not find my line of thought convincing, that's fine with me, and perhaps not too surprising if you are an open theist.
On the other hand, perhaps you will do everyone a favor and explain why my words do not convince you.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 10, 2009 at 05:42 PM
Now that I look back over it, I think my last question captured why I didn't see persuasive value in your argument; I was examining your claim against the background of my own open theistic leanings. In your own worldview (i.e. a future knowable to God only in terms of certainties), I think your argument has value and cannot be so easily dismissed.
But without the common ground of a future that is knowable to God only in terms of certainties, I don't think the logic of your argument can stand. In an open theistic worldview, God knows the future in terms of certainties and possibilities. Sometimes, he makes something about the future certain, declaring things that will come to pass. At other times our own actions makes something about the future certain. These things all belong to God’s knowledge. But an open theistic worldview also understands God to know some things about the future in terms of possibilities. These possibilities allow for God to know that A may happen or that A may not happen.
In such a world, I think it would be fair to allow God to determine some things about the future without determining all things since his knowledge is of a different quality of that knowledge presupposed by your argument.
There is a quote by David Basinger refuting simple foreknowledge on similar grounds.
"Since there can never be a time when a God who possesses complete SFK [simple foreknowledge] does not know all that will occur, and since foreknowledge can be utilized in a providentially beneficial manner only if there is a time at which what is foreknown can influence a divine decision that is itself not also already foreknown, there can exist no conceivable context in which SFK would enable God to make providentially beneficial decisions that he would not be able to make without this knowledge" (Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism, 55).
I think your critique of arminianism compliments his, albeit from polar sides of the debate. Does this make sense?
Posted by: Joseph Kelly | February 11, 2009 at 09:23 PM