The Significance of the Bible for Christian Theology - Essay Example

?The significance of the Bible for Christian theology The Bible has great historical and devotional value and it has attracted many theologians and scholars throughout the history. While some studied the Bible, its origin and function to understand the relationship between God and man better, others do so only to prove their supremacy. For example, Goldingay asserts the central struggle behind belief in Bible being inspired by God. He states that the debate raging is a complex issue, with the superficial “argument about history of theology or church history”, while the underlying “are rival claims regarding who are heir to Christian orthodoxy” (Goldingay, 1994, p. 261). There are several approaches to the authority of the Scripture, with most of them being inadequate. One theory states that every word in the Scripture is inspired by God. That is a very rigid view that leads to many mistakes and claims of Scripture being inerrant at all instances. This doctrine of the authority of Scripture receives much criticism in this modern day and ultimately turns Scripture’s authority into authoritarianism. Another approach to the Bible as to the historical source also proves to be faulty as, alongside with the benefits it yields; it also diverts the attention to factuality and separates the literary form from the meaning of the text. There is also an approach to the Bible as a literary classic. It might be beneficial to have this approach to introduce Bible to otherwise ignorant group of students, but it hardly generates deep interest in it or, what more, introduces spiritual principle to abide by. Approach to the Bible as to a private devotional text helps to have a personal application of the Scripture, but it tends to put less emphasis on the common and universal. Other theological approach to the Bible is studying it from a viewpoint of it being the “Word of God”, which also puts certain limitation. God does not have limitations, but the language always has some limitations of expression. Also, language evolves with time and words’ meaning change too, thus proving that language itself cannot be attributed to God, Who is infinite and full of possibilities. (Schneider, 1991, p. 205). Approaching the Word of God only as metaphoric expression, although it is a root and a complex metaphor, includes many meanings such as God’s symbolic self-disclosure, sharing of life and His divine self-giving (Schneider, 1991, p. 216). God has to use symbols for the metaphor. Sneider argues that even from the very ancient times God used “symbolic self-disclosure” through nature. For Israelites God’s Word became a mean of communication between them and God, and “made a highly original advance in symbolic interpretation” by understanding “their own history as the story of the relationship between themselves and God” (Schneider, 1991, p. 215). They viewed Jesus “as full and divine revelation of God” (Schneider, 1991, p. 216). From the point of view of God’s Word being metaphoric, the Bible is a symbolic witness of the divine self-gift, and is potentially revelatory. When referring to the Word of God, the reference is usually made to the written word in the Bible, which is understood as the physical object (the book) as well as the text and the message contained therein. The Bible is considered a sacramental object, which at times, leads to distortions such as a temptation to view such objects as magic, taking it out of context or a temptation is to create an idol out it. In actuality, the Word of God is only sacramental when the biblical text is read and interpreted, and that creates the possibility of revelation (Schneider, 1991, p. 220). The Scripture is the unique and sacred book. Another author argues that Gospels tell us about nature of Scripture’s authority and means by which God exerts it, which is the word. The authority of the Scripture therefore equals to the authority of God himself. Its function is didactic - to give the knowledge about God and to lead readers and those who will accept the truth of what it means to be ruled by God. God exercises His authority by redeeming His people, by entering into a covenant with them (Jensen, 2002, p. 155). Therefore, the Bible primarily is the Book of Covenant, and it often represents God speaking. It tells us that its origin and authorship belongs to God himself. Therefore, God has an authority over His words. Many examples in the Bible, including Moses, show God’s initiative and power, which is not exercised at the expense of the power and that the role of a prophet and other people was to transmit and apply the word that comes from outside of them (Jensen, 2002, p. 156). Through God’s word and man’s obedience God deals with people. The origin of Scripture is the inspiration and revelation, and the medium of communication is the Spirit. This is evidenced through studying the Bible itself. Inspiration is “something like divine possession” (Jensen, 2002, p. 157) and the result of it can only be attributed to the Spirit. There is an issue, however, pertaining to the difference between inspiration and dictation. It is worth mentioning that, although inspiration means a measure of possession, it does not involve dictation. There is an opinion that the Scripture was dictated to men word-for-word. However, this approach is not valid from either theological or hermeneutic point of view. Bible is both human and divine (Jensen, 2002, p. 159). Thus human have the freedom and the authority of Scripture is set on that premise. God frees the man by his kingdom and through the covenant of Jesus; and he rules over people through Scriptures, which are the “Book of Covenant”. The nature of the Scripture and its function is determined though this ruling (Jensen, 2002, p. 178). Modern day approach to theological studies often tends to concentrate on the historical errors contained therein and judge the Bible authority and function from that viewpoint. It is not a novelty that there are some inaccuracies in the Bible texts. Holy Fathers from the centuries ago, although they believed in the holiness and the divinity of the Scriptures, admitted that there are some accidental mistakes in it. Later, Bible scholars such as Luther and Calvin were also aware of the inaccuracies therein. However, most scholars and theologians were not bothered by those flows, seeing them as a speck of sandstone in the overall marble built Pantheon (Goldingay, 1994, p. 264). “The humanity of Scripture was a postulate accepted before the development of critical theories” (Goldingay, 1994, p. 265). The nineteenth century marked the development of a more critical approach to the Scripture’s inerrancy. However, it seems there is a strong link between scriptures’ inspiration and its inerrancy. Warfield, one of the first theologians that had this approach, discovered a number of factual slips. However, he stood on the premises that all the faults can be explained. Other scholars were arguing that scripture cannot be theologically true if it is not true scientifically and historically (Goldingay, 1994, p. 271). The further argument stated that “the scriptures that we now have them are neither infallible nor inspired” with the premise of hypothetical original scriptures being without fault. However, it stands no reason to believe God inspired the scripture but then failed to assure its preservation (Goldingay, 1994, p. 272). Therefore the scripture was given the way we also have it now, and the main concern for it being true is the concern for its doctrinal infallibility with historical or other inaccuracies being of the lesser significance (Goldingay, 1994, p. 273). It is a phenomenon in itself that sinful and erring men could speak the word of God. And those prophets and apostles were real historical people, human and fallible. The inspiration of the Bible is the fact and the nature of this inspiration can be found in the scripture itself (Goldingay, 1994, p. 274). Again, it stands to reason that scriptures are inspired and not dictated, thus the room is left for the measure of errors due to man’s fallible nature. Some accounts details might be based on the personal meditations on prophecies, which make those accounts true, even if not factual. In reality, the stress on the Scripture’s inerrancy does not contribute to understanding the scripture as a whole, but diverts the attentions to harmonisation of errors, thus the approach of correcting those is unsound. Also, correcting errors does not necessarily provide historical factuality (Goldingay, 1994, p. 277). Also, the attempts to accentuate scripture’s inerrancy lead to status of the scripture being the truth marred. The scripture is set apart from other writings that contain historically correct and faultless information. It is, being inspired, is the source of inspiration that is drawn from within it. Another danger of stressing inerrancy as the proof of scripture’s authority and inspiration is that it “presses people toward the conclusion that therefore they cannot maintain their conviction at all” (Goldingay, 1994, p. 278). Besides, it is easier to claim all the scripture’s inaccuracies than it is to study it and meditate on it. Some Bible authors speak with a measure of uncertainty or approximation. However, it does not make their message of less importance. The description of the scripture as the word of God is not directly means its particular historical accuracy; it allows for a measure of errors. The function of the Scripture is not to provide historically accurate narrative, but to “effectively and meaningfully render Jesus for us”. “The whole narrative, including any nonfactual elements, as it is and not as we might expect it to be, is God’s inspired word, and as such does its work and speaks to us” (Goldingay, 1994, p. 283). However, with any approach to Bible study, the Scripture sustains the faith of those who reads it, as it testifies of the living God, of his sovereign and liberating grace. Bible authority has a different basis from that described traditionally. Through it the individual receives liberation from isolation, egocentrism, hopelessness and apathy and more. Readings of the Scriptures are guided by the rule of faith, rule of love, and the rule of hope. Bible’s authority is non-coercing and is central to ones faith. Bible is esteemed a unique and sacred book, although not inerrant, but having proofs of its inspiration, with the best approach to studying it accepting it as a whole rather than trying to find it historically or otherwise correct and by studying it in the context. References: Goldingay, Jay, (1994). “Inspiration and Inerrancy”. Models for Scripture. (pp. 261-283). Eerdmans: Michigan. Jensen, Peter. (2002). “The Authority of Scripture”. The Revelation of God. (pp.145-178). Leiccester: Intervarsity Press. Migliore, Daniel. (2004). “The authority of Scripture”. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. (pp.44-63).Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Schneider, Sandra. (1991). “New Testament as Word of God”. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. (pp. 27-63). San Francisco, New York: Harper. Read More