hermewhat?

i was looking for a few entry level hermeneutics textbooks to compare when i stumbled across an interesting article. In it was the following quote:

One’s hermeneutics is, after all, determined finally by the view one takes of inspiration. How did the Bible come into existence? That it is the Word of God almost no one within the mainstream of evangelical thought will deny. That God used men to write the Scripture is also too obvious from Scripture itself to contradict. But when the question arises concerning the relation between God’s work and His use of men in writing the Scriptures, there is a great deal of disagreement. The larger the role given to the human instruments, the more reliance one places on higher criticism with its various techniques. (source)

This issue will ultimately be at the root of most, if not all of the issues that we will address.

I brought up the issue of inerrancy with a good friend of mine today and she seemed appalled at the fact that I am interested in questioning the doctrine at all. I threw out an ignorant blanket statement just to see how she would handle it (i’m so bad!) I said to her “no where in scripture does it claim inerrancy for itself.” Her reply was to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to me: “Every scripture is inspired by God and useful…”

There are two doctrines being discussed here. Inspiration refers to the ultimate “guiding hand” of God in the process of the formation of Scripture. A “high” view of inspiration will say that God penned the book letter by letter, guiding the hand/mind of a human scribe. A “low” view of inspiration would say that the human author was very, very much involved in the writing process, with their personality, linguistic skills, and individual beliefs coming out in the text.

Inerrancy refers to the belief that the Bible as it was originally written was 100% without error of any kind. The idea is a logical second thought if one was to hold a “high” view of inspiration coupled with a rigid view of God. (i’m showing my colors already.)

In the above quoted article, the author takes the conversation to a place that i believe was an inappropriate place to take it: he made the argument a personal one. You’ll see how here:

the debate is finally one concerning the authority of Scripture.

Now that in itself is something of an academic question, of course. But the point is that when one begins to speak of the authority of Scripture, one is confronted with the fact that Scripture is unlike any other book. It does not come to us for verification. It does not present its case to be examined on evidence outside itself as to whether or not it ought to be believed. It is not a text on the philosophy of history which presents startling views on how one must explain history, views which are open to examination and questioning. It is the Word of God which comes to man with the “Thus saith the Lord.” It carries with it the authority of the sovereign God Himself before which all men are required to bow in humility. Upon this hangs the issues of heaven or hell. It is this spiritual question which is the basic and underlying issue at stake. Will you bow humbly before the authority of God? To a certain extent, hermeneutical issues are smoke screens to cover the more basic issue. Or, to put it differently, various theories are proposed in the field of Hermeneutics and inspiration to escape the compelling and inescapable authority of the Word of God.

In essence, he argues that those who are interested in “higher criticism” are in fact actually attempting to “escape the compelling and inescapable authority of the Word of God.” By this, he is implying that only those with a “high” view of inspiration have a “high” view of the authority of Scripture. This anecdotal evidence is worse than just “incorrect.” It is offensive and inappropriate.

(more to come.)

Advertisement